Forestry

Division of Forestry Strategic Direction

Statewide Forest Strategy 2010

Statewide Forest Assessment 2010

Forest Sustainability Framework

Statewide Forest Plan 2004

C5. Trend: Less forested land is accessible for public use.


Comment #: 1
Yes, and the burgeoning land stewards you describe in C4 should be rewarded with more voice and greater hunting opportunities. Those who choose to continue to enjoy the benefits of city life should do just that, continue to enjoy city life even during hunting season. Quality public hunting is for those able to walk far enough. Fishing is not so much of a problem. Wisconsin has good public access. It's much easier to gain access to private land for nonconsumptive recreation. Few landowners want you in there hunting their "prize buck". A better way to gain access to private land is by offering to hunt coyotes or trap racoon, all the time bearing in mind that conectedness with the land cannot be achieved in a weekend.


Comment #: 2
There are plenty of parks, public land etc the "public" can use. They don't pay the taxes or maintain the land so why should they be able to use it?


Comment #: 3
Perhaps when the state and DNR has taken over all control of our waterways and forested land, we will live in a utopia, however, the small landowner with Aldo Leopold philosphies will be on the endangered species list!


Comment #: 4
As a private landowner who has invested a considerable amount of time, money and energy in land stewardship, I am becoming increasingly angry wit the entitlement attitude of the public who feels we must open our lands to them. Many of these individuals have elected to spend their money on large homes, new trucks, boats, atv's etc. instead of land. I don't feel private landowners should have to suffer for their choice (and in many cases it is a choice).


Comment #: 5
C3 - (Red Pine) We own a 31 acre tree farm and other woods. We pay a forester to manage it. Should not be a gov't cost.


Comment #: 6
We know what is happening, but does that mean the D.N.R. should purchase woodland - I don't think so.


Comment #: 7
That's why state forest and other public forest should expanded.


Comment #: 8
I believe that with regards to access for hunting private forest lands that Wisconsin should consider a program like Montana where part of license fees are returned to landowners who give access to hunters, fishermen, etc.


Comment #: 9
I note the Dept. continues to purchase public land, you can't please everyone. The conservancy seems to have "deep pockets" lately.


Comment #: 10
1. A study to identify land uses. 2. Money to come from combined governmental sources and private landowners?


Comment #: 11
Of course this is an issue of importance. However, just because less private land is available for public use, doesn't mean that the DNR has to provide for all of societies forest recreation wants on state forestlands.


Comment #: 12
The state should promote programs that open more land up to the public.


Comment #: 13
I'm not sure that todays population is capable of using public land with a sense of responsibility for preserving its natural state. Perhaps private ownership is better in some cases, depending on the intent of owners.


Comment #: 14
I don't see this as a problem.


Comment #: 15
DNR owns too much land now. This is not their MISSION.


Comment #: 16
But government, through its statewide forest plan, must be sensitive to the rights of landowners, particularly as regards trespassers.


Comment #: 17
This is bad. Hunters need more access to the deer populations in order to assist in managing their numbers. Many hunters hunt in overcrowded conditions already.


Comment #: 18
TO HELL WITH HUNTERS! Mail boxes are not deer nor metal barn roofs - they should pay land owners to hunt as is the rule in southern states.


Comment #: 19
As a NIPF landowner of over 36 years we have witnessed the use and abuse of our land by hunters and recreationists. We need the education of these who wish to use private lands - respect; permission to enter, etc. We have developed a partnership/permission plan for owners and hunters through our local WWOA Chapter members. In use for a couple years we are seeing some positive results! Again, it is education of all involved!


Comment #: 20
We should maintain if not increase amount of land open to public, but minimally developed.


Comment #: 21
Is this more social than forest management?


Comment #: 22
Our 200 ac are available to anyone for non-motorized use


Comment #: 23
True but remember hunting and fishing are changing also. Incentives to keep local (?) can help. We have a lot to learn in this area. If the public gets to use my land maybe the public should give me a little rent or reduction in taxes without a lot of strings attached.


Comment #: 24
I agree with acquisition but the state needs a backbone when up against corporate raiders.


Comment #: 25
build a list of properties that owners will rent/lease/allow dialy use only to people for a fee or free. Publish a book/website annually with maps. Uses could be for: photography, hunting, hiking, walking , biking, bird watching, fishing


Comment #: 26
see C4


Comment #: 27
We should try to keep as much land open to the public for hunting, fishing, hiking and other non motorized (non destructive) uses of the forest as possible.


Comment #: 28
Address this issue and coordinate recommendations with Deer 2000


Comment #: 29
The Forest Mgt Act addresses this and is important to continue this


Comment #: 30
Owners have a right to limit or restrict trespassers.


Comment #: 31
Lot of land open to the public.


Comment #: 32
Keep the emphasis up for federal, state, and local government acquisitional control.


Comment #: 33
Do not infringe on private property rights. Baiting and feeding deer have also contributed to these trends.


Comment #: 34
It seems that city people will always want and need to spend time to renew and recreate away from the crowds


Comment #: 35
Then remaining public land should be accessed through natual means and not urban industrial means such as ATVs, snowmobiles, motorboats.


Comment #: 36
Also, there is more demand by our population to use forests.


Comment #: 37
I do not feel that the forests need to be owned and controlled like the day of Robin Hood.


Comment #: 38
Is it insuitable? Managed forest program offers best fast solution but a minor(?) hunting and fishing effort may be needed, but expensive.


Comment #: 39
Public land needs to be provided whether managed by state, county or local municipality . . .it needs to be set aside and managed with the understanding that it is a natural area.


Comment #: 40
This relates back to B2, increased demand for recreation.


Comment #: 41
Keep it out of the hands of developers.


Comment #: 42
What is the cost/benefit factor of public lands for hunting, etc? Again, recreation brings dollars to the "state society", but at what cost to our public lands?


Comment #: 43
All managed forst law land should be open to the public.


Comment #: 44
We need controls to limit damage done by all terraine vehicles, jet skiers, etc. Unfortunately a large segment of the population does not care about conservation, wildlife habitat.


Comment #: 45
I agree with the statement. Many tree farmers open their property to a variety of outdoor activities. This is why it is necessary to establish some kind of incentive to maintain tree farms. We open our property to hiking, biking, skiing, snowshoeing etc. There is no way that I would open it to the public for hunting (as mandated by MFL).


Comment #: 46
Landowners have to protect themselves from liberalist public whom lacks conservative knowledge. RE: trash along roads and public use areas


Comment #: 47
This should not affect the amount of forest management conducted or forest products harvested.


Comment #: 48
I think the forst land ownr is entitled to some compensation from those who wish to use the forests. If the land owner goes to an urban area, he usually has to pay for the privledge to use recreational facilities. Wildlife like deer are a cost to forest and cropland owners by eating farmers crops and browsing young trees that are starting to grow. I think the owner and taxpayer of this land is entitled to get some compensation from so called sportsmen that have more time and money for his recreation than the landowner.


Comment #: 49
Many of these private landowners are likely better land stewards than their predecessors in interst. Private property rights are important and must be maintained. Some public users have little respect for private property rights, the environment, or wildlife. See response to C2.


Comment #: 50
Right on!


Comment #: 51
Lands I used to hunt in the 40s and 50s is all posted. People coming out from the city buying forested lands that's the first thing they do is post there place.


Comment #: 52
Need to address overcrowding and safety on public lands with hunting and abuse of the forest by the users.


Comment #: 53
To post your property brands mre as a "rotten no-good b. . . .d"! To let every s. . .t h. . . .d in country run a muck violates me and my property. I have only been home maybe 1 year out of 8 for deer hunting in past 30 years. My wife can not or will not sit out by woods and chase down ever "rum head" that trespasses! Big problem here, our firnds are generally respectfull, others not!


Comment #: 54
If the irresponsible minority segment of the recreational public which makes access to prive lands difficult to gain for the rest of us would clean up its act, this trend would probably become much less of a threat to hunting and fishing. It is simply a matter of thoughtful considerate behavior toward other people and their property.


Comment #: 55
Woodland tax laws need to expanded. They certainly help this situation.


Comment #: 56
This is a very important issue


Comment #: 57
The state should take money that is being lost on MFL properties and purchase land for all people to enjoy!! I am not saying do away with the MFL program (it is good in theory), but it must bescrutinized


Comment #: 58
Ask for permission - do not tresspass


Comment #: 59
Public land is being over used - industrial lands also.


Comment #: 60
Here again the private landowner is often taken for granted. All everyone wants is to "use" his land for their purpose. We need more tax breaks, free trees, ? and other incentives. Just like a large corporation! Why should we (the forest owners) be expected to always give in to the public. Everyone wants to own land and those who don't or can't want to control those of us who do. It's not right of fair, nor is it good for our lands.


Comment #: 61
I think there would be less of a problem here if non-owners treated private land respectfully and as if it were their own.


Comment #: 62
This just happened in the Crivitz area where the State buys 2000 acres of land for a park. I'm sure no hunting will be allowed their. Closed areas for vehicle traffic are also being increased which decreases the amount of people who use these areas. Also one of the main reason many people buy their own land is because it is too crowded and unsafe for hunting on "public land."


Comment #: 63
In order for the general public to find value in our forest land, they need to have access to it. On a statewide basis we need to increase access to bicycle, hiking and skiing trails, as well as increasing areas to hunt and fish.


Comment #: 64
And once you remove corporate and industrial Landowners who would open their land anyway (or lease it), I believe that MFL is not helpful here - In most parts of WI < 10% of MFL land is "open" (and often less than 5%) - MFL needs help - !


Comment #: 65
Privatization of public lands will be devastating. We must maintain and increase public land holdings.


Comment #: 66
The remaining large tracts of private forest land need to be "protected" by tax incentives and possible conservation easements.


Comment #: 67
As a private landowner, I disapprove of any programs requiring me to open my land for public access. I will not sign-up any new programs that are introduced that requires me to allow public access.


Comment #: 68
My comment on this is the same as my comment B3.


Comment #: 69
Perhaps clearly designated private lands that are opened for recreational use could be associated with (a) protection from liability (for injury, etc.) and (b) some additional tax advantages.


Comment #: 70
Recreation on private land should never be dictated by the state.


Comment #: 71
Wildlife tends to overpopulate these private areas that are often not open to public use - be it recreational or hunting or fishing. Possibly some sort of large forested landowner fee could be required if the owner refused to allow controlled access to control deer numbers by hunter application. The fee could be rescinded if they cooperated or used to purchase other private holdings.


Comment #: 72
Many programs are in place in other states to provide direction and incentive for private landowners to open their properties to the public. Wisconsin would do well to review some of these effective alternatives and follow suit in implementing them.


Comment #: 73
I my case the land is open to anyone who asks. Next to me I do have absentee landowners from the Twin Cities that want to use it for hunting, thety also want to use everyone elses land. They have told me (when they asked if they could hunt) that I could not hunt on their land.


Comment #: 74
Add trapping to the list.


Comment #: 75
But have partner planning for uses


Comment #: 76
Commercial forest owned by lumber companies are now being leased out to hunters or individuals closing forest land to access. If lumber co get tax brakes, they shouldn't be able to lease out this forested land.


Comment #: 77
Hunting will decline if the state does not try to develop some kind of partnership approach.


Comment #: 78
Don't necessarily buy more public land, but enhance private landowners incentive to allow public to use forested land.


Comment #: 79
Because of rising property assessments and taxes, private landowners cannot afford to give away free recreation to the public.


Comment #: 80
This is perhaps the most crucial issue. Hunting and fishing ? Items need to be preserved.


Comment #: 81
When the animals on these private lands a closed off from the hunters, than these owners should pay for the damage done by the animals doing damage.


Comment #: 82
Too much of our forest is being bought by people from the city who have too much money which they did not work hard enough to make. Then they hunt one or two deer from the 100 acres and let the farmer feed the rest and post their land.


Comment #: 83
If hunting is not allowed services should not be given by state!


Comment #: 84
Hunting rights are a commodity to be developed and harvested as any other forest land product!!


Comment #: 85
MFL & FCL should be fully covered.


Comment #: 86
Access should be brokered in private transactions between landowner and recreationalist. Not the State!


Comment #: 87
As long as public lands are available to hunt, parks for recreation and lakes and rivers for fishing, there is no need for concern.


Comment #: 88
Free hunting is over! Landowners have an assist that can generate income and they have to use it because of high land taxes and poor commodity prices.


Comment #: 89
This concern has major impact on associated multiple use of forest concepts. A huge PR campaign for concerted shared use must be implemented.


Comment #: 90
Keep forest lands open for multiple uses.


Comment #: 91
Enforcing the laws in managed property is needed improving.


Comment #: 92
Trespass laws have to be made better for private landowners.


Comment #: 93
Keep out the ATV's.


Comment #: 94
Many State owned parcels, County parcels and National forest areas such as the Chequamegon National Forest we have here in Price, Lincoln, and Oneida Counties open for hunting. (In managed forest law or C.F.L.). We are ok for awhile; not sure about down south?


Comment #: 95
If I had to hunt on public land I would quit hunting - regardless of how much there was, hunting public land is like a shout - anything goes. I spend as much time looking at my trees as I do hunting my land. There is no one stealing my stand and I see things in natural setting without human hinderance. People on public land litter, loiter and don't give a damn!


Comment #: 96
Public lands is for public use - private lands must remain for private use. I oppose manipulative means to get private owners to have to open their lands for public (if they opt for various programs, etc.)


Comment #: 97
The state must stand up for the people and provide access wherever and whenever possible. Buy more large tracts of land to provide recreational opportunities for all.


Comment #: 98
We need more state owned land available for hunting and fishing - land that is managed for this, and WITHOUT roads, signs and trails


Comment #: 99
This may be true in parts of the state. But in other parts there are hundreds of thousands of acres available for public use. Again, you are generalizing TOO MUCH


Comment #: 100
There are plenty of public lands - state/national forests, county parks, etc.


Comment #: 101
Some owners, including myself have had damage to seedlings, vadlism, and theft. Forest crops cannot be insured and the landowner is stuck with the bill. The DNR refuses to enforce tresspass laws even though WI Stat && states that motorized vehicles can be prohibited and the DNR is the agency responsible for enforcement.


Comment #: 102
Just ask the farmers or landowners for permission


Comment #: 103
If a person buys 80 acres and pays the taxes, I don't think the state/DNR should get involved with public access. How would your state folks like to open your house up to the public?


Comment #: 104
If the forested land WITHIN the parks were not logged, it seems there would be plenty of forested land.


Comment #: 105
Excellent - that's as it should be - set aside reserved areas for these activities - make the public apply for access.


Comment #: 106
Let the state buy more land


Comment #: 107
Good


Comment #: 108
The end is in sight - quality of life has gone down the toilet in my lifetime.


Comment #: 109
I would gladly have my tax dollars going to aquire my land and wilderness by the State of Wisconsin or the federal gov't. This would help keep bigger parcels intact.


Comment #: 110
I have been very frustrated with WI trespass laws/enforcement. While I support public hunting - I want to exclude and prosecute those who trespass and poach. I have found little help in "managing" this group - it seems like it's all in or all out. I also think that some of the crop damage permits are being abused in my area.


Comment #: 111
We cannot adversly affect the private landowners rights. It could hurt the forest resource rather than help it.


Comment #: 112
How would you address it?


Comment #: 113
We have more under utilized PUBLIC land than any nation on earth


Comment #: 114
Publick hunters have no respect for our trees or fences!


Comment #: 115
Lease of land for hunting is growing very fast and is helping our hunting industry a great deal!


Comment #: 116
Foreget the hunting, fishing and camping and picnicing would help our urban population


Comment #: 117
State shows ? Continuing wish land purchases for ? Use more aggressively


Comment #: 118
I don't see this as an issue at this time.


Comment #: 119
The implications of making private land open to public under any circumstances thru statutes is very alarming. I'm hearing this more often and am very concerned about it.


Comment #: 120
The state needs to maintain and/or expand as much state forest land as possible. I strongly believe that private landowners should continue to be allowed to purchase and own private forested land in the future. If we can at least maintain (roughly) the present amount of public industrial and state public forested lands it should be adequate to fulfill future recreational needs of the citizens of Wisconsin.


Comment #: 121
My contention is that we are more critical of the hunters that hunt our property.


Comment #: 122
The government needs to purchase more land or purchase access for the public on private lands.


Comment #: 123
The paper companies allow hunting on their thousands of forest lands.


Comment #: 124
Increased tax on forest lands may decrease the impact on this trend. This trend may also decrease if fuel prices sky rocket.


Comment #: 125
They are not making any more - but, more people keep coming.


Comment #: 126
Don't try to force private property owners to allow public access - I can't pitch a tent on the front lawn of someone in Middleton - so why do they expect to walk all over my property in the North?


Comment #: 127
relates directly to B5


Comment #: 128
Once again state should buy any critical land such as large tracts to insure the future of hunting and fishing etc.


Comment #: 129
Is not the private land owner - part of the public? This tells me that private forest ownership increases the "public" use, with improved harvesting and growing new trees.


Comment #: 130
Conflict of statements which is it? (RE: C2 and C5)


Comment #: 131
This is exactly the reason why we should be very cautious about putting more acreage into wilderness areas and roadless tracts. We should keep the noisy-trail bikes and snowmobiling - recreationist seperated from the quiet and serenity of hiking and bird watching people.


Comment #: 132
In the northern area of the state there is considerable public land available.


Comment #: 133
If people were more respectful of private forest, maybe more land would be open to public use.


Comment #: 134
Private rights remain change thru education not policying


Comment #: 135
True


Comment #: 136
If addressed in terms of a state plan to purchase and/or protect lands for public use NOT legislating what private owners may or may not do


Comment #: 137
Citizens still have access, it just means they may have to walk a little and actually utilize some woodsmanship skills. We are now in a quick-fix society, where people want to be able to drive next to their hunting area...that's belongna!!


Comment #: 138
One or two sales do not a trend make. Private ownewrs have always reserved land for private use on openeing weekend of deer season. This issue is way overblown.


Comment #: 139
One or two sales do not a trend make. Private ownewrs have always reserved land for private use on openeing weekend of deer season. This issue is way overblown.


Comment #: 140
There is NO deer problem, there is an access problem that must be addressed to manage deer numbers.


Comment #: 141
Equally relevant is the implications of this trend for forested land that remains open to public access (i.e., increased use/pressure).


Comment #: 142
The state of Wisconsin should better prepare itself to purchase large blocks of forestland whether industrial or non-industrial when it becomes available. For instance, we should have bought all of the four states timber land when it became available. This ensures it will be managed properly and provides recreation opportunities for Wisconsin residents indefinitely.


Comment #: 143
There definitely needs to be a program that opens up private lands to the public. Wyoming has such a plan, through a voluntary contribution, hunters gain access to private property by means of a state sponsored trespass fee fund. Granted, the Wyoming landowner is more apt to have large acreage under one owner, but I think the program could have some benefit in Wisconsin.


Comment #: 144
The state plan should address public use on its lands and other options.

A solution to the loss of public use forests due to private ownership should not be a major effort of this plan. It should be addressed from the users coming up with alternatives and working out the coordination required to do so.


Comment #: 145
Public land area is increasing, though probably not fast enough to offset recreational demand.


Comment #: 146
This issue can be addressed in the anticipation of the land legacy aquisition program.


Comment #: 147
Recreation for comsumptive and noncomsumptive uses is important in WI


Comment #: 148
Varied recreational use lands near high population centers should be a paramount goal to lessen pollution and higher use of our highways.


Comment #: 149
Exactly! Again, this has broad impact on local economies and on wildlife management. Much of the DNR's difficulty in managing deer numbers is because of greater restriction of access on private lands. We have no problems in controlling deer numbers on public lands. It's on private lands that serve as refuges. This results in privatization of the public wildlife resource and will lead to public hunting, fishing and other forms of recreation as we know it.


Comment #: 150
This is becoming increasing noticeable, not only in the south, but in the north, as well. I believe we should eliminate the opportunity for landowners to close Managed Forest land to public uses currently allowed.


Comment #: 151
This trend could produce pockets of land where deer are allowed to reproduce unchecked, making wildlife managers jobs more difficult


Comment #: 152
The problem is the exploding demand for public use of forest land for recreation not the shrinking inventory of forest land itself.


Comment #: 153
more private owned land should be open to public use possibly though tax breaks


Comment #: 154
Very high on the list of priorities.


Comment #: 155
solution?????


Comment #: 156
Not only do these activities bring money into the state of

Wisconsin but they also enhance public awareness of the importance of natural resources.


Comment #: 157
Not only do these activities bring money into the state of

Wisconsin but they also enhance public awareness of the importance of natural resources.


Comment #: 158
MOTORIZED RECREATION IS TAKING A BEATING BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS ,MOTO REC. IS NOT THE DEVIL INCARNATE AND IF MANAGED CORRECTLY CAN EXIST WITH OTHER FORMS OF RECREATION. AFTER ATTENDING MANY MASTER PLANNING MEETINGS I REALIZE JUST HOW GREEDY SOME PEOPLE ARE .


Comment #: 159
Land set aside for aesthetic beauty should be encouraged.


Comment #: 160
Sure people don't want to lose their free hunting and recreation areas. But they also have to work with the landowners and respect their property, which many users around my home do not. Causing many hard feelings between them and my family.


Comment #: 161
Eventually we should approach the European model where the whole community appreciates the forest and landowners are proud of their community minded management.


Comment #: 162
Focusing attention at granting easements, possibly statewide legislation with some type of benefits for the landowners that grant easements for public use.


Comment #: 163
Focusing attention at granting easements, possibly statewide legislation with some type of benefits for the landowners that grant easements for public use.


Comment #: 164
Get it up front where these things come from if they do not come from here. Demands for all things is increasing, so if we limit supply, where do the customers go?


Comment #: 165
Yes, and this trend is extremely important to the economic value of forest production and recreation etc............




Comment #: 166
This is were programs like sustainable forest land anitiative ties in.


Comment #: 167
Acces to NIPF lands to hunt would help in killing more deer.


Comment #: 168
County forests and other public land can/should charge for use just like National Forest Campgrounds do. User fees would spread the cost more equitably to those who appreciate hunting.


Comment #: 169
In our neck of the woods it is also the dramatic expansion of cranberry bogs and the corporate ownership of the new bogs that has also added significantly to this problem


Comment #: 170
One of the biggest social issues


Comment #: 171
One of the reasons the DNR was created was to ensure public enjoyment of Wisconsin's resources!


Comment #: 172
Tax breaks for forest land must be tied to acess for public hunting.


Comment #: 173
More of a problem south than up here

but an issue none-the-less. The DNR is

not exactly making things easier in the

state when it increases the gun deer

season, impacting the non-hunters, and

especially in the early fall when many folks

like to be in the woods for no purpose

other than appreciating it (and I am a

deer hunter both rifle and archery!)


Comment #: 174
This could be included with the GIS database.


Comment #: 175
Is the amount of land available to the public actually changing dramatically? I do not know how open the industrial land was. Another important issue is the ratio of available land to our growing population.


Comment #: 176
I agree, and my previous reply on FCL reforms may help address these concerns. I think more private forest land owners would be receptive to limited public access if they were assured that it would be compatible with their interests and not environmentally harmful. For example, I think access by hikers, fishers, and perhaps hunters is much less daunting to owners than uses by ATVers, bear hunters with dogs, or trappers. It may be important to classify different types of uses, and give landowners more options.


Comment #: 177
I think that these issues should be more concerned on the health and stabability of the forest not how and where us people can play and have a good time


Comment #: 178
THanx fOR notiCING


Comment #: 179
This is a major problem around urban areas.


Comment #: 180
Need incentives to make private land available for public use.


Comment #: 181
Need incentives to make private land available for public use.


Comment #: 182
We should make land more open to people.


Comment #: 183
Develop a tax reduction program for landowners willing to open their forestland for public use who are growing timber but choosing not to harvest it.


Comment #: 184
Are there incentives that can be offered to private landowners who make their land available for recreation? I'm thinking low impact activities like hunting and fishing more than destructive activities like snowmobiling.


Comment #: 185
Private forest land may be sought out by the DNR for public use perhaps through lease programs or other alternatives.


Comment #: 186
ESPECIALLY a need for a private owner's ability to curtail snowmobile and ATV use!!!


Comment #: 187
Not to mention it has implications for increasing recreational pressures on state-owned forests.


Comment #: 188
I am not concerned with public hunting land.


Comment #: 189
Public recreation is still one of the most satisfying and cost-effective outlets for busy people, and must be maintained.


Comment #: 190
In many parts of the state, especially on a main corridor in town, that if you purchase the property it will remain open to snowmobling after you purchase it.


Comment #: 191
Our area is having problems already with public access to snowmobile trails. Our city is growing so rapidly in all directions, its blocked all areas for trail access.


Comment #: 192
Our area is having problems already with public access to snowmobile trails. Our city is growing so rapidly in all directions, its blocked all areas for trail access.


Comment #: 193
We need more public lands along Lake Superior


Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007