Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
C9. Issue: Role of Public Forests.
Comment #: 1
Forests first secondary sues aftter that.
Comment #: 2
Create a panel for review and use of electric motors only areas!
Comment #: 3
Let us not forget that a forest is a renewable resource.
Comment #: 4
Timber production should be the favored part of any plan.
Comment #: 5
Need to keep forests open to all. No more ill concieved "roadless areas" They are bad for forests and users
Comment #: 6
I disagree with the last sentence. Everything that everone ever wants can be found in the public forest. From this it should be apparent that more public forest are needed and the role be defined by the ownership rather than a statewide cookbook.
Comment #: 7
And laws must be enforced especially ATV usage on public forest lands.
Comment #: 8
Sometimes an extemely small but voal minority is catred to at everybody elses expense!
Comment #: 9
Please finish the work you started on the NHAL Master Plan before you attempt a statewide plan.
Comment #: 10
Depends on who the decisions makers are
Comment #: 11
Motorized recreation needs to be more limited to prevent ecological damage.
Comment #: 12
Privatize forests and return to tax role
Comment #: 13
If the people that use the public land obeys your privacy if you are a landowner.
Comment #: 14
A greater specialization in forests for uses.
Comment #: 15
Could public forests be used for recreation and education in ways that would explicity show good and bad practices??
Comment #: 16
Remember without the forests we will have none of their benefits. Somethings is better than nothing. Practice forest management and wil lall have something.
Comment #: 17
I feel role has been well addressed
Comment #: 18
(see C6, 7 & 8)
Comment #: 19
Education - this state must find a way to educate urban citizens. The northern 1/3 of this state cannot be held hostage by the metro areas. Forest industries are too important.
Comment #: 20
The USFS is too much controlled by lawyers and tree huggers.
Comment #: 21
Amen.
Comment #: 22
These should be the classroom for all individuals, those forests should lead by example (ie proper management on private forest). Without this why should private individual practise proper management.
Comment #: 23
It's not just the demands due to the growing population - it is more certainly due to more people seeing what even age, allowable cut, and clearcutting plans do to destroy what once was a beautiful mixed maturign forest.
Comment #: 24
Public waters should be circumscribed by public forests. Which should be accessed on nature's terms - not man's.
Comment #: 25
"scales" - Not sure what this means - in different situation or same such thing?
Comment #: 26
Our problem has been the "economy of scale" idea, which has nearly wrecked us. Big machinery is no long acceptable to many people. We better get moving on this area or we will not be cutting or (?) forests - critical!
Comment #: 27
What is the role of state forests? Should this role be re-examined and modified?
Comment #: 28
All activities in our public forests should be strictly controlled.
Comment #: 29
See comment C8.
Comment #: 30
The hunter, fisher, hiker, atver and biker may have a license to obtain but no liceense of ingress or egress - we pay a taxes on fuel plates and drivers fees!
Comment #: 31
Damage done by Gore and Clinton nees to be reveresed and mgmt of fed and state forests put back to bet use by professional foresters
Comment #: 32
I reluctantly agree to use a few tax bucks here.
Comment #: 33
Public forests need to be managed for timber production even state parks and wildlife areas.
Comment #: 34
I'm not in a position to offer comment on government of public property - even if I did. What good would I do? That's DNR's turf.
Comment #: 35
Please see comment at B4. A finite resource base like a bank account requires a limit, ultimately, on increasing demand or in truth we will become bankrupt
Comment #: 36
The foresters and managers have to take the bull by the horn and make the health of the forest its #1 issue.
Comment #: 37
Perhaps a lease type payment should be made to private landowners so as to allow public hunting on these lands.
Comment #: 38
Those decisions seem to be made in favor of private interests i.e. Loggers, lumber mills, paper companies, etc. Why would a statwewide plan change that? It would be more likely to encourage it.
Comment #: 39
There is also a conflict over use of the trails - some activities are taking place on trails where they weren't intended - mountain biking on interpretive trails in the Northern Highland - American Legion State Forest. There are probably more examples that the DNR is not aware of.
Comment #: 40
Base public forest allowed uses on an economics. This is after all why they were created!
Comment #: 41
Public development is currently out of control. The State needs to look at more restrictive zoning laws to protect these areas before they are gone forever.
Comment #: 42
Keep in mind that the public forest are as nice as they are because of the good management they have received for over 70 years.
Comment #: 43
OK.
Comment #: 44
Shares of the pie for user-groups has gone to the loudest voice. Unfortunately, ATVs and snowmobile lobby have been "louder" although this form of recreation is detremental to the forest. Silent sports enthusiasts and forest preservationists are less "aggressive" and do not have an economic argument the motor sports do. As a result, they are misrepresented. Again, the health of the forest and the internal ecosystem should come first. Because of the population growth and number of motorized vehicles, the amount of noise and pollution, and damage are a huge concern. These people rarely actually enjoy a natural experience, just look at the trail, so send them elsewhere.
Comment #: 45
See C7. DNR/USFS can manage this conflict better.
Comment #: 46
Please either recognize all economic values or take economics out of forest decision making.
Comment #: 47
Again - there must be certain - clear environmental guidelines that cannot be eroded by high pressure, wealthy interest groups who want to access or take trees for economic gain.
Comment #: 48
Kettle Moraine State Forest Southern Unit!
Comment #: 49
Again, good luck!
Comment #: 50
National forests are the biggest problem at this point.
Comment #: 51
Locals should have more input - less outsiders.
Comment #: 52
We need to manage the forests under the concepts of multiple use. Providing the best use for the majority of people - not the special interest groups, who want ONLY PRESERVATION!
Comment #: 53
2
Comment #: 54
No more roads and logging on public lands. More wilderness areas.
Comment #: 55
The environmental impact should be the most important concern
Comment #: 56
harvested when they must be mature
Comment #: 57
As question ?? - and responded to ? - "lock in" a set amount as accessible - and that's the limit - make the "public" apply - for access and ?
Comment #: 58
Not all of the people can be pleased all of the time. There will always be someone complainng about something. We have to please as many as we can but still not lose sight of other objectives and the health of the forest.
Comment #: 59
Limit power vehicles usage in public parks please
Comment #: 60
Perhaps it is because we should have the forest in private hands. That would resolve the conflicts!
Comment #: 61
Public lands need to be incurred - high priority spending - it's now or never
Comment #: 62
Enough trails etc.
Comment #: 63
Goal: Have best trails available in Midwest bring in people from other states to recreate - to spend $ in Wisconsin. State needs to leed the way and have the best trails available. Choice for trail rides like riding a horse along a trail.
Comment #: 64
Noise and pollution must be addressed
Comment #: 65
Forests are a great asset for Wisconsin and should be available.
Comment #: 66
How can this be changed. It's a matter of fact. I see no need to increase the amount of territory in public demand.
Comment #: 67
demonstration public forests illustrating use/management technics are needed to educate forest owners and public foresters
Comment #: 68
Be careful! "Big Brother" is lurking in the shadow!
Comment #: 69
Concentrate your efforts - and my tax $, on public lands - not private.
Comment #: 70
Make sure the public forest is able to be used for all segments of the public, including the hunter and fisher person.
Comment #: 71
If possible private owners of large tracts of wild land could be offered financial incentives to allow public use.
Comment #: 72
Public forests are supposed to be managed for multiple uses. Period. This should not be an issue and you shouldn't make it one by "addressing" it in a forest plan.
Comment #: 73
Again - let's keep common sense in front of us.
Comment #: 74
Those forests owned by the Federal Govt are or should be controlled by thm (Fed Govt).
Comment #: 75
Let use public forests and not worry about preserving a "virgin" forest by banning public use as appears to be happening at the federal level.
Comment #: 76
Let's face it, National Forest is not going to be managed by biology. County Forest is managed for the dollar. State forest should be a good balance.
Comment #: 77
Isn't this why we do master planning? We can address most of these issues and make implications more clear with alternatives.
Comment #: 78
This should be dealt with in the initial planning of a particular forest. It seems that oftentimes some groups are dissuaded (or banned) from using an area after conflict occurs. Initial planning and makeing the rules known from the start could perhaps help the many users enjoy the forest respectively.
Comment #: 79
This is where we need to make a strong stand and to manage for the resource, not politics.
Comment #: 80
This is meeting mania. Cut, cut, cut!
Comment #: 81
Paint ball fights on county forests can confuse a logger as to which tree to cut or leave.
Comment #: 82
But we can not set aside all our lands as natural areas. Forestry and harvesting must still be practiced on our public lands.
Comment #: 83
Keep decision making as local as possible. Outspoken preservationists should not have the ability to shut down management.
Comment #: 84
The role and goal of the different public forests should be addressed, there is NO ONE solution, but an integration of different uses for different forests. THe concept of diversity of use goes along with diversity of structure in a forest.
Comment #: 85
Multple use acces needs to be maintained on public land. This includes resonably regulated motorized recreation.
Comment #: 86
Land ownership patterns and the cost of land leans towards the need for more public forest land
Comment #: 87
Complex demands require a complex management strategy.
Comment #: 88
Recommend expansion of this issue to include the other major forest owners: Industrial and nonindustrial private.
Comment #: 89
Public forests increase in value as they can buffer private forest harvest in a watershed.
Comment #: 90
Public forests should be managed for recreational and ecological uses primarily, and only very secondarily, if at all, for economic benefit. This is a very important issue and certainly should be addressed in a statewide plan.
Comment #: 91
I think the real problem is in private land development and the lack of control. C4 and B3 and other uninformed people, including the media, are taking and decissions without any scientific basis or misinterpreted information.
Comment #: 92
Manage with the individual person in mind first, not special interests.
Comment #: 93
Management for all recreational uses needs to be maintained on public lands. Limiting very much to wilderness status waists too much recources.
Comment #: 94
Again public education is key to limiting such disagreements.
Comment #: 95
Industrial forests are uses for their stockholders. Other private forest are primarily used for aesthetics and wildlife habitat.
Indusrial forests are used for the benefit of stockholders. Other private land is used primarily for aesthetics and wildlife habitat. Public land use should be decided by the public.
Comment #: 96
Needs to be addressed. Not all forests can provide all things for everybody, but if a forest has something and still will not provide it, who will and at what cost both economically and environmentally.
Comment #: 97
See previous comments
Comment #: 98
This seems like a never ending issue-can't please all of the people all of the time.
Comment #: 99
Some continuity would be good here. Who is responsible for biodiversity? It looks like the federa government, but does that mean that Marathon county can manage for economics only? No, but they need to be required to be more ecologically based.
Comment #: 100
Only public forests will be large enough to make a environment area that can be maintained for harvest, habitat and recreation
Comment #: 101
Timber production needs to remain the first priority of public forests. Without this, you cannot afford to have any of the other uses because you cannot afford to keep the property in public ownership.
Comment #: 102
I can agree with this one with no reservations AS LONG AS participants in decision-making are educated with good facts from good science.
Comment #: 103
This is timely because the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, the DNR's Northern Highland - American Legion State Forest and the DNR's Brule River State Forest are all in the middle of their master planning processes. These large blocks of public forest lands are the best and only hope to integrate landscape ecology and conservation biology principles at an effective scale in northern Wisconsin. These public lands can and must be managed for their collective biodiversity, ecological, and watershed values, not merely as glorified "tree farms" and ATV playgrounds. These master planning processes will be a turning point for these forests, one way or the other. I hope that the public interest and healthy ecological systems win.
Comment #: 104
This is timely because the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, the DNR's Northern Highland - American Legion State Forest and the DNR's Brule River State Forest are all in the middle of their master planning processes. These large blocks of public forest lands are the best and only hope to integrate landscape ecology and conservation biology principles at an effective scale in northern Wisconsin. These public lands can and must be managed for their collective biodiversity, ecological, and watershed values, not merely as glorified "tree farms" and ATV playgrounds. These master planning processes will be a turning point for these forests, one way or the other. I hope that the public interest and healthy ecological systems win.
Comment #: 105
Regional and local plans with wide public participation.
Comment #: 106
Public forests are not always entirely open to the PUBLIC.
Comment #: 107
I would be in favor of adopting programs that improve the peace and tranquility of our forests. ATVs and snowmobiles disproportionately displace silent sports and activities. Noise trumps silence every time.
Comment #: 108
Made very clear so that local interpretation is not the only form of control!
Comment #: 109
I think the role of public forests is already well defined. Your question suggests a desire to re-define the roles of public forests.
Comment #: 110
The science of landscape ecology and conservation biology must be better integrated into cooperative management strategies among all public and the larger private forest landowners. It's like a landscape ecological jig-saw puzzle, and we need to begin putting more of the pieces in their proper locations and increase habitat patch sizes and connectivity. The pivotal pieces in this puzzle are the large blocks of Forest Service, DNR, and county forest lands. They must become the foundation to build upon with private partners.
Comment #: 111
I think they should have a balanced usage.
Comment #: 112
I agree that it would be best if the efforts among federal, state, and county forest planners would be coordinated as best as possible for the health of the state's forests since trees do not respect political boundaries.
Comment #: 113
This issue is paramount to the survival of our public forest lands. These conflicts must be openly discussed.
Comment #: 114
keep these forests open to all users
Comment #: 115
keep these forests open to all users
Comment #: 116
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.
Comment #: 117
Public land is for the public - don't keep it from the public
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS