Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
C6. Trend: Stakeholders are more involved in forest decisions.
Comment #: 1
Those without ownership or knowledge should not help manage other peoples land I.e. environmentalists
Comment #: 2
These groups tend to form a system of checks and balances. This is good. Unfortunatly the DNR tends to bully individual land owners and back down from industry.
Comment #: 3
Would like to see the discussion focus on the benefits/disadvantages of forest management by consensus rather than forest mgmt by professionsl. My thought is that this has had a negative impact on forest management.
Comment #: 4
But, too much emphasis is placed on environmental groups especially group not from the area.
Comment #: 5
This is especially true at the present time as our legislators, the DNR, Farm Bureau and others affect our real estate taxes through use value. A tremendous burden has fallen on many of us who are independent land owners of timberland.
Comment #: 6
How do you "address" an issue/trend such as this? Much of WI's forest is in private hands, so how can good forestry practices, public and private reconcile with the vested interests (many non-environmental) of so many different groups?
Comment #: 7
The owner still should have the greatest input concerning his/her woods.
Comment #: 8
Whether we like it or not, these various interests will attempt to impact policy to their own ends.
Comment #: 9
Good.
Comment #: 10
Only a small handfull of people that really don't have the longevity it takes
Comment #: 11
The public forests must be preseved for all citzens, not jus special interest groups.
Comment #: 12
There is a perception on "Main Street" that the DNR will do whatever it wants regardless of public input.
Comment #: 13
enviromental groups should play a major role in decisions involving our lands.
Comment #: 14
I don't think it would change your public input process much.
Comment #: 15
Stakeholders with money could lobby politicians to affect forestry adverslly; referrendums might be needed to make decisions - (or who)?
Comment #: 16
Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the advice and authority of Natural Resource professionals (e.g. foresters, loggers, wildlife mgrs, etc.)
Comment #: 17
This is good, in general, but do we "plan" for it?
Comment #: 18
The more information and feedback is a decision making process the better. If more of the stakeholders were useful for processing the information more successful solutions to conflicts could be achieved.
Comment #: 19
and many like zoning do not hep
Comment #: 20
If forest planning is going to be affected by groups' opinins, be sure to listen to all groups, not just the most vocal.
Comment #: 21
The private landowner has less control over his/her own land and this must be addressed!
Comment #: 22
It seems that groups who know the least try to impact the most - good or bad! Again - EDUCATION can be a big help!
Comment #: 23
Too often is seems, money talks, We need undeveloped acerage.
Comment #: 24
Any plan should consder all view points . . . Solicite good input.
Comment #: 25
Natural comments are equal. Comment from knowing folks are better than some. Unknowing environmentalists nuts. Good management should carry more weight because this in the end benefits us all.
Comment #: 26
more effort needs to be made to solicit the opinions of the busy, working people.
Comment #: 27
. . .it takes both the black and white keys to play the Star Spangled Banner . .
Comment #: 28
The public owns the state and national forests and should be involved in the decisions.
Comment #: 29
Very bad trend - property owner has no rights except to pay taxes!
Comment #: 30
Landowner rights should not be diminished
Comment #: 31
This was the question I asked in Issue B4. Should property owners, whether private or corporate be give a "free rein" to do whatever they want with WI forest lands
Comment #: 32
Most of the above have no place in forest decision making.
Comment #: 33
Too many damn lawyers and tree huggers.
Comment #: 34
Need to get out more and better info so that these people can make educated and sound recommendations to the controling groups.
Comment #: 35
I believe these people are present to learn and share concerns. If these are addressed they are more likely to agree and support decissions made by professionals. They should not make decisions for prefessional managers.
Comment #: 36
As public forets are increased in size and in use, stakeholders will turn to political warfare. This may cause gridlock and may be an argument for decreasing rather than increasing public acreage.
Comment #: 37
Agree with the statement not the process
Comment #: 38
Good, people need to be involved
Comment #: 39
The state will never please everyone, and should be able to stand by their decisions because each decision will have been made carefully, after thoroughly researching all available information.
Comment #: 40
If we are to retain out forests, all groups will have to learn what the forest golas should be and adjust their demands accordingly.
Comment #: 41
Provide them with a longterm state-county forest plan. A guidance - an education.
Comment #: 42
As a partner in the "wolf River Basin" I guess I've helped make some of these decisions
Comment #: 43
Professional foresters should have the final say.
Comment #: 44
I thought fewer people know or care what's going on
Comment #: 45
Loggers should be included
Comment #: 46
DNR has done an excellent job in this regard
Comment #: 47
All these groups are fine so long as timber use and jobs remains the No 1 priority
Comment #: 48
And too bad.
Comment #: 49
I participated in planning sessions for future use of Willow Flowage lands. This was a good exerises and I recommended strongly that cutting be continued on the forest land on that property.
Comment #: 50
All people need to look at all forest policies before a final decision is made. The Powers Bluff issue in Wood County is a good example. The forests need to be looked at as more then a quick dollar.
Comment #: 51
It is important to know how many people each one of these groups represent. Some groups have a louder "bark" than "bite".
Comment #: 52
An extremely small number of activitsts account for most involvement. I've been to enough meetings to know how small a group these true believers represent - but the media loves them.
Comment #: 53
This is good news.
Comment #: 54
Keep and encourage involvement by a broad range of stakeholders, and stop catering to outspoken minority interests. Listen to all the wheels, not just the squeeky ones.
Comment #: 55
Money can drive and has driven the use of the forest in past and present - big special interests that log timber and R.V. and 4 wheeler and snowmobile groups would choose to cut and run on roads at will in State and Fed. WI forests - We must establish environmental imperatives - clean air - wilderness and "silent sports" areas and its values. There must be environmental guidelines that protect the forests from degradation, with access for vehicular and logging limited and closely monitored, since this is where the problem with habitat destruction mainly occurs.
Comment #: 56
Are they?
Comment #: 57
Good
Comment #: 58
A few groups are active - it is a small % of the public. The public relies on DNR to manage the land.
Comment #: 59
Education.
Comment #: 60
Should be more participation.
Comment #: 61
To attempt to please this hodgepodge of interests in the long run would be a serious mistake.
Comment #: 62
Excellent concept here! We are doing well here.
Comment #: 63
Environmental groups should not lock up the forst to other uses.
Comment #: 64
I don't agree with the Clinton Administration wanting to put logging restrictions in the National forests. Select cutting is a part of sound forest management both for timber production and wildlife.
Comment #: 65
This can go overboard. How are the stakeholders weighted? At what point is there a lobbying effect?
Comment #: 66
The more stakeholders involves the less anything constructive will get done.
Comment #: 67
Not always best for Wisconsin's forest health and economy.
Comment #: 68
If everybody gets their greedy hand into the mix, our forests will suffer. I believe the DNR has the ability to manage our forests and should. POLITICS should be kept out.
Comment #: 69
There are to many "stakeholders" looking for rules and laws to benefit their own goals. They should become involved through ownership or monetarily. Not look for someone to do something for them. Sportsmen have been paying for years and are realizing less of their money spent for their sport.
Comment #: 70
For the most part this is only done by vocal, emotional special interest groups! Who have their own selfish interests in mind.
Comment #: 71
Major environmental groups lobbying, political parties or groups should not have a say in how are forests are managed. It should be left upt to the professionals! AMEN!
Comment #: 72
Environmental groups don't do any good for anybody and create problems where there isn't any
Comment #: 73
I am concerned that businesses with VESTED financial interest have much too much influence on forest policies. The other groups with the possible exception of property owners - do not have financial gain reasons for their involvement
Comment #: 74
Forest management decisions should primarily fall on forestry professionals in the end.
Comment #: 75
LET THE PERSON PLANTING THE TREES, MAKING FIRE LANES, PAYING TAXES, MORTGAGES, INSURANCE ETC BE THE ULTIMATE DECISION MAKER.
Comment #: 76
The majority does not care - they are concerned with one thing - acquiring wealth at any expense to the environment.
Comment #: 77
What's wrong with this?
Comment #: 78
Both sides must be addressed negative as well as positive.
Comment #: 79
There are fewer people engaged with pulic land mgmt, but more with national agendas and the government sponsored ability to force tthem down the throat of the majority
Comment #: 80
Yes this is ? But besides insuring adequate public involvement during the planning process the trend does not need to be addressed.
Comment #: 81
The forestry decisions should be made by competent foresters familiar with the local forests.
Comment #: 82
What are stakeholders?
Comment #: 83
Watch out for environmental groups.
Comment #: 84
This is good but I fail to see a need to address it in the plan.
Comment #: 85
Misguided "evnironmentalist" must not be allowed to control decisions
Comment #: 86
Again forcing management thru statutes is very concerning to me - woodland owners associations are doing a good job of instilling pride among members. This should be encouraged.
Comment #: 87
I believe foresters should be watching as how this land is developed.
Comment #: 88
This trend may need t obe reversed or slowed unless the participants areeducated to all issues.
Comment #: 89
Broadcast this I'm trying to be one of them.
Comment #: 90
There should be weighted opinions - giving more weight to those people who have to live next to those public lands in the north - rather than some environmental professor in Madison who pats himself/herself on the back.
Comment #: 91
I LIVE ON THE Menominee Indian Reservation and I see thousands of boardfeet going off the res. Most by white contractors, where the money and the affect of t he logging affect the Menominee Forest? Think that people of reservation should be involved in decision making.
Comment #: 92
Tree farmers are real stakeholders. Do not tax them out of the farming practice of growing and cultivating trees for harvest. Keep the tax assessments below pasture for private land owner use of tree farming.
Comment #: 93
The more people involved in the decision making will or should result in better cooperation and tolerance of other peoples rights to use public lands for recreation.
Comment #: 94
Keep this as a recognized fact, but do not change this or let it impact plan.
Comment #: 95
I have long advocated a radiccal change in how public participation is handled by public agencies. In this context, an examination of current methods should be undertaken and alternatives identified. The recent successful completion of a landscape level mgt plan in Win WI using such a radical new mothod proves there are alternatives.
Comment #: 96
It should be true but usually it just turns in to the special interest people input for their own personal gain.
Comment #: 97
Let's not get it too complicated.
Comment #: 98
Environmental groups often are radical, have no common sense, & I sometime wonder if they ever did a day's work in their life. (Raised with a silver spoon in their mouth & nothing better to to).
Comment #: 99
Don't think this is true for typical absentee recreational owner of private lands.
Comment #: 100
Of issue is to ensure that these stakeholders have the scientific background to be able to decide what is right or wrong and not based on hype or "feelings" alone. Deer management is a good example where we are now set to manage deer based on public opinion rather than biology. That must not happen to forestry.
Comment #: 101
This is another alarming trend - such as Deer 2000. Why do we or should we continue to require higher education in our foresters/employees if we are going to allow non-informed groups/individuals to set policy and determine management activities. Aren't WE the professionals?
Comment #: 102
It is certainly the cause of conflicts.
Comment #: 103
Stakeholders can comment on public land issues, but private property rights should NEVER be compromised.
Comment #: 104
Involving more, rather than less, of the interested parties will only strengthen the decisions that get made. It will also complicate and lengthen the process, but will result in a more "diverse and stable" decision (just like forest diversity and stability).
Comment #: 105
often these are emotional and have no scientific basis
Comment #: 106
I hope this planning effort will give all stakeholders a voice rather than the small vocal few.
Comment #: 107
Though this is time consuming it is essential if a complex, collective strategy will be developed and supported by the public. The sooner we get started the better!
Comment #: 108
Combine with C7.
Comment #: 109
This should affect plan development & implementation, but should not be a chapter in the plan.
Comment #: 110
Look what's happening on the Brule Forest.
Comment #: 111
Look back to 4C! Emotion wins the media.
Comment #: 112
We need to keep management decisions in the hands of professionals. Public input can help guide these processes but should not be used in place of good managment decisions.
Comment #: 113
Why would this ever be considered a bad thing? To include a statment saying this is the case, and to encourage it to continue is appropriate, but I don't think you want to imply that you would purposefully exclude people from the decision making process.
Comment #: 114
I think it is important that all sides are given an equal voice-not just the environmentalists and definitely not just the timber industry or the developers. An understanding of a long term plan/vision is important as long as that goal is for a healthy forest, not a developed one.
Comment #: 115
More involvement is better. How you react to it is more important. How much do the lobbyists representing narrow special interests influence planning or policies versus citizens and people whose existence isn't dependent on making money from exploitation of forests?
Comment #: 116
The more involvement the merrier.
Comment #: 117
I would add to this, private lands as well. You only need to look as far as California to see the implications of Julia Butterfly and the redwood tree Luna. This was on privately-held lands. Private individuals occupied the land and essentially forced the timber company to conceded to saving the tree. The implications of California-like regulations and requirements here should really be included. In some respects the boundaries are being drawn beyond aesthetics and economic boundaries to include religious and moral values. Increased polarization is apt to spark animosity and requests for government intervention to mediate disputes over what is "right" and what is "wrong". There are examples closer to home, eg. the Lower Wisconsin Riverway. Outside of the merits of zoning, one side of the argument says that private indviduals through the actions of government have unfairly influenced the forestry decisions of private individuals.
Comment #: 118
Decision making should include input from the public, but I'm assuming some of these decision makers are biased in the decision they make.
Comment #: 119
Decision making should include input from the public, but I'm assuming some of these decision makers are biased in the decision they make.
Comment #: 120
The forest should be managed for the people, but they must be managed scientifically also.
A large number of people may be basing their thoughts on forest management by what some environmentalist told them.
I've found that most information an environmentalist talks about is pulled from where the sun don't shine.
Comment #: 121
They need to learn to work together for the good of the forests.
Comment #: 122
Laws and regs require this so it can't be an issue - it's a way of life or SOP.
Comment #: 123
Good.
Comment #: 124
The forests of Wisconsin are a "Commons" and more and more stakeholders are demanding their part in determining what happens with this "Commons".Futur planning wil have to include these various groups or stakeholders.
Comment #: 125
This is a healthy thing, even though it makes things much more difficult.
Comment #: 126
It can't be ignored. Forestry needs to have a clear voice among all the other opinions.
Comment #: 127
Look into integrated boards to discuss management issues. I know they exist, but look into diversifying them.
Comment #: 128
People can't always have what they want. Nature has some limits.
Comment #: 129
As mentioned earlier, forest management should be left to professionals who have been trained in this dicipline and can make management decisions based on science. When other groups become involved in making forest management policy, these decisions are to often based on emotions, not science.
Comment #: 130
I think the politics should be taken out of forest management. The environmentalists would like to make all forests off limits, even to their private owners and the industries look for the cheapest processing methods posssible sometimes at the expense of environmental concerns. The DNR needs to affirm its care-taker role and provide scientific, reasonable forest management programs that common people AND industry will benefit from. People need to get excited about the resources of Wisconsin...but politics turns many people off.
Comment #: 131
I believe that because not enough people are educated on these issues that the decisions should be left up to the experts.
Comment #: 132
Well, about time, wouldn't you say?!
Comment #: 133
There is indeed more stakeholder involvement, but sadly most of it remains by paid representatives of either the forest products industry or motorized recreational interests. It remains difficult for concerned volunteers to monitor and effectively influence all of the complex plethora of forest related issues and meetings. The paid lobbyists have a decided and unfair advantage.
Comment #: 134
There is indeed more stakeholder involvement, but sadly most of it remains by paid representatives of either the forest products industry or motorized recreational interests. It remains difficult for concerned volunteers to monitor and effectively influence all of the complex plethora of forest related issues and meetings. The paid lobbyists have a decided and unfair advantage.
Comment #: 135
You could just include this with C4. More influential
people own forest land... it's a normal progression.
Comment #: 136
Science should still influence land use decisions over which groups have the largest financial clout!
Comment #: 137
We don't trust our water quality to the decisions made by non-scientists but we are willing to gamble the soil and forest destruction away to the whim of the land-owner with controlling interest. It keeps coming back to laws that protect and sustain our natural resources.
Comment #: 138
Public should be involved in goal setting. Once the goals are set the job of implementing should be turned over to trained professionals with very limited input from the public in the day to day accomplishment of those goals. Either this, or the public must be brought up to the level of knowledge of a professional.
Comment #: 139
I agree that all stakeholders should have a place at the table. But corporate interests tend to receive biased favoritism due to their political influence, paid attorneys and lobbyists, and generous campaign contributions. This is wrong and undermines our democracy. Public trust resources belong to everyone. They are not for sale to the highest corporate bidder. These priceless public assets must not be converted into private corporate profits.
Comment #: 140
good idea
Comment #: 141
This is a fact. You may want to address methods to increase this. Otherwise, I don't see it as a major technical forest management issue.
Comment #: 142
There should be community input in the process, but not dictate to property owners. Communitiy input can be a powerful way to promote positive decisions.
Comment #: 143
They all should be involed with there input.
Comment #: 144
Involve all interested groups and inform them about the decision making process and how they can effect the resulting decisions.
Comment #: 145
I commend the DNR's use of this survey to solicit imput from the general public for the purpose of forestry planning rather than just soliciting the opinions of the timber industry. I am however very concerned about the manner in which the DNR solicits imput and determines policy for hunting, fishing and trapping regulations in Wisconsin thru the Conservation Congress hearings and meetings process. The Conservation Congress appears to be a DNR sponsered special interest group of hunters, fishermen and trappers. (These are activities my family participates in so I am not opposed to these sports) The actual delegates to the Congress are 99.9% men which is hardly representative of Wisconsin's general population. Other consevation organizations, clubs, enviornmental groups and women should be better represented in the delegates to the Conservation Congress if the DNR really is interested in sound policies that represent the interest of state citizens.
Comment #: 146
I commend the DNR's use of this survey to solicit imput from the general public for the purpose of forestry planning rather than just soliciting the opinions of the timber industry. I am however very concerned about the manner in which the DNR solicits imput and determines policy for hunting, fishing and trapping regulations in Wisconsin thru the Conservation Congress hearings and meetings process. The Conservation Congress appears to be a DNR sponsered special interest group of hunters, fishermen and trappers. (These are activities my family participates in so I am not opposed to these sports) The actual delegates to the Congress are 99.9% men which is hardly representative of Wisconsin's general population. Other consevation organizations, clubs, enviornmental groups and women should be better represented in the delegates to the Conservation Congress if the DNR really is interested in sound policies that represent the interest of state citizens.
Comment #: 147
Involving stakeholders is an excellent way to make public the difference of opinion that exists anyway. It hopefully can foster intelligent debate and educate everyone involved. It's what a democracy is all about.
Comment #: 148
It is clear that those that are involved in decision-making are more likely to support the choices made by any group even if it is not their personal choice.
Comment #: 149
this is the way things are going. We need to embrace it, rather than shy away from it.
Comment #: 150
Moderation between rival groups should follow rules or guidlines. The volume of one's voice should not be a measure of their issue, devotion, or merrit. Guidelines for extracting fact from rhetoric should be part of the plan.
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS