Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
E5. Issue: Sustainable forest products may
provide a global advantage.
Comment #: 1
Refer to my comment on B6
Comment #: 2
So - we should log off our forest to compensate for lack of planning or self control in Canada, South America and other parts of the world! No, we just need to say NO to logging instead of trying to compensate for others mistakes. The last remaining local forest is being logged off, directly north of us as we speak. The long term effects on global warming etc could be devastating. We need to be conservative, teach recycling and self control as a means of reaching the world, not give away our land.
Comment #: 3
Not a separate issue. Just another aspect to sustained yield forestry
Comment #: 4
"is more difficult to maintain" - but not if people there and companies and their own governements are taught. Let some well-trained foresters be sent to do this teaching instead of sending our wood (and see E4 also)
Comment #: 5
Treees that are cut in a sustainable manner is the best way to do it. If sustainable forestry here could reduce non-sustainable forestry elsewhere, I believe it is a good trade-off.
Comment #: 6
The only forests I am concerned about are in WI. The tropical forests, and the harvests there from are strictly governed or limited by the political despot in control.
Comment #: 7
lets not over do it
Comment #: 8
marketing initiatives
Comment #: 9
Yes!
Comment #: 10
am all for use of WI trees
Comment #: 11
Again - forest land should be perceived and maintained as such - recreational forsts should be just that, recreational!
Comment #: 12
Greater enforcement on MFL, just cause their selling, doesn't mean you have to buy their data or management
Comment #: 13
4
Comment #: 14
It's good for WI's economy and hopefully get a couple of people working
Comment #: 15
Tell this to the eco funds
Comment #: 16
Forests are sustainable, why not manage our forests in WI to promote jobs and save delicate areas (around the world) from habitat degradation. I happen to think an sapen clearcut is a beautiful site.
Comment #: 17
So be it.
Comment #: 18
Don't think WI must solve all the world's problems if harvesting is the answer
Comment #: 19
Firest tax fossil fuels so that the term "free" in free trade is not misunderstood. At that point, wood substitutes and increassed effeciency will ashely eliminate much of the need for Wisconsin wood.
Comment #: 20
B6.
Comment #: 21
Worth a try
Comment #: 22
I agree, BUT I want forests that are sustainable, not just sustainable yield. Big difference!
Comment #: 23
Sustainable forest management is the key term providing it excludes plantations.
Comment #: 24
The increase in volumn means nothing if that volumn is not available. I believe that the available volumn is decreasing because of dividing large parcels into smaller parcels and other reasons. I hate to sound like a broken record but property taxes are causing the availabe forest products to diminish.
Comment #: 25
Wisconsin should be developing markets for and harvesting more timber volume.
Comment #: 26
As it applies to public land only
Comment #: 27
Lets do something about it, not just talk and plan
Comment #: 28
Here is where your help will generate more income, ergo more tax monies. Just don't let spend thrift big government use money in general fund.
Comment #: 29
Couldn't agree more!
Comment #: 30
And we'll never see old growth again.
Comment #: 31
Amen.
Comment #: 32
We're assuming that sustainable forest management is occurring - forest products are not the only reason for sustainable management.
Comment #: 33
Sure, but to what extent?
Comment #: 34
Wood products or recycleable they make food for other vegetation. I don't burn leave. I chop them up and the grass eats them.
Comment #: 35
It is important to realize that industry will go where the wood supply is. We must continue to intensly manage our forest sustainably to keep a sound economy and healthy ecosystem.
Comment #: 36
The practice of forestry is, by definition, sustainable. There is only one kind of forestry: if it is not sustainable, it is not forestry.
Comment #: 37
COOPs could be used to sell certified sustainable wood.
Comment #: 38
OK.
Comment #: 39
If you define "increasing in volume" the increase in trees less than 50 years old, you are misrepresenting the term. Looking at standing board feet does not only define volume, you must consider acreage. Old growth has lower board feet, but important component of volume.
Comment #: 40
On this one, Wisconsin can't take on the world's problems, but maybe we could participate in larger efforts along these lines. Sustainable management, sustainable produced products - good grief, this is nonspeak. Cut it out.
Comment #: 41
Increase public awareness in so much as possible.
Comment #: 42
The land must remain as a forest.
Comment #: 43
This will affect biodiversity. Less biodiverse forests are more vulnerable to disease and exotics.
Comment #: 44
How can it be possible for Wisconsin to make up the difference without harming it in the long run?
Comment #: 45
There is no comparison to what's available in tropical/boreal forests. Their individual uniqueness and production risks/benefits cannot be exchanged.
Comment #: 46
More tax incentive needed; three-quarters of the value of timber goes in harvesting.
Comment #: 47
You are stating the obvious. What is the question, or rather, why do you ask whether or not the plan should restate the obvious?
Comment #: 48
This would put too much pressure on Wisconsin's forests. We can help some, but we don't want to start another "cutover" period.
Comment #: 49
Don't give up our forests
Comment #: 50
Lets cure the ills in our own country FIRST we do not manage our own people and resources properly. When we shine by example others will notice.
Comment #: 51
In the overall world picture, I doubt if our passing interest in this "Buzz Word" concept will affect the world much
Comment #: 52
Not sure it would be good to have only Aspen-Red Pine plantations as it seems to becoming now.
Comment #: 53
How can we supply global products when we already import wood to meet our needs?
Comment #: 54
4
Comment #: 55
Again, cutting consumption and moving away from forest products is most important. Recycling, reusing and alternative products such as hemp must be used.
Comment #: 56
HELP US TREE FARMERS OUT MORE. I.E. Land tax breaks, species wanted etc. They are our tree product reps.
Comment #: 57
I agree but is there a need to include this in the plan? I hope sustainable harvest isn't a new home fore clear cutting. Sustainable selective cutting is the answer.
Comment #: 58
Great!
Comment #: 59
"increasing in volume for decades" - not according to USFS planners - look at their projected and actual volume cut from 1986 to present on the icolet-Chequwegon
Comment #: 60
Support the Wisconsin tree farmer. Private tree farmer as well as the managed forest land farmer. The private sector can grow the trees and harvest them with less government cost. Less taxes would be needed.
Comment #: 61
This is a fact that must be stressed. Increased demand for products must come from somewhere. We need to inform the public that "managed working forest" are the best choice for humans and the environment.
Comment #: 62
Right on!
Comment #: 63
Well geez I'd hope so! How rediculous to have a perfectly good producing forests in our 'backyard' and be purchasing wood from areas that DO NOT practice sustainable forestry.
Comment #: 64
I don't think sustainability has anything to do with it. It all comes down to where you can the raw materials the cheapest.
Comment #: 65
I think this issue of sustainability is a word game, but as said before, I do believe in good forest management of our own lands, not passing off our needs to countrys that don't manage well.
Comment #: 66
First we need to answer the question of the true "need" for wood products and whether there are alternatives. THere is not enough reuse of wood products and that should be promoted.
Comment #: 67
Wisconsin's unique forestry attributes should be articulated in the plan as it relates to our nation and the globe.
Comment #: 68
agree, agree, agree
Comment #: 69
Amen.
Comment #: 70
DEFINITELY!!!! This is a "no-brainer" to me, but obviously, not to a large number of the people in our part of the country.
Comment #: 71
It may be more practical to infuse the global perspectives into the appropriate individual issues and address some regional issues instead.
Comment #: 72
Depending on the product, WI may or may not be able to supply a replacement/substitute product.
Comment #: 73
forestry by definition is a sustainable activity if properly practiced - silly labels accomplish nothing
Comment #: 74
I think we should have a forester exchange program and I can be one of the first to go to Costa Rica, Guatemala or Brasil. - Steve Holaday
Comment #: 75
I still like the logo idea for WI forest products.
Comment #: 76
THER AGAIN MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTING LIKE FORESTERS FOR REASONS OTHER THAN THEY STATE.LEAVE THE JOB TO YOUR EXPERTS.
Comment #: 77
:)
Comment #: 78
Sustainable forestry is the future and it should be taken into consideration.
Comment #: 79
Wisconsin has a moral obligation but not just to provide cellulose products. High quality outdoor recreation, natural beauty, and species deversity are also diminishing world wide.
Comment #: 80
We need to do all we can to slow the rainforest destruction, plus the locals would benefit from in increase in their own areas.
Comment #: 81
Extremely important!!!
Comment #: 82
Extremely important!!!
Comment #: 83
Present legislation is probably already in place that requires sustainability. The goal of forestry is and has always been sustainability. If it is not sustained, it isn't forestry. It's clearing, forest removal, or conversion.
Comment #: 84
This trend has significant ecological as well as economic concerns to consider.
Comment #: 85
A healthy sustainable situation is the key here.
Comment #: 86
Right on.
Comment #: 87
Don't forget our local ecology though. White-tailed deer are too abundant and we wouldn't want to continue creating abundant edge.
Comment #: 88
The only real question is how much of the forest is to be sustained.
Comment #: 89
This is our future.
Comment #: 90
I agree but do NOT think we should sacrifice Wisconsin forests just to save a forest in another country. We need to manage OUR forests FOR US and in the best way we know how. Our forests should not be used to "take pressure off" other forests in other places!
Comment #: 91
We shouldn't play NIMBY games.
Comment #: 92
...in the strongest terms!
Comment #: 93
I agree in concept, but practice may be more problematic. Those poor indigenous tribes in the rainforest probably know more about true "sustainable" uses than we may ever come to understand. It may be arrogant to assume that we can do it better than others. If we intend to "lead by example", it should be done comprehensively in reducing our consumption, increasing our recycling, and maintaining healthy and diverse native forest ecosystems.
Comment #: 94
I agree in concept, but practice may be more problematic. Those poor indigenous tribes in the rainforest probably know more about true "sustainable" uses than we may ever come to understand. It may be arrogant to assume that we can do it better than others. If we intend to "lead by example", it should be done comprehensively in reducing our consumption, increasing our recycling, and maintaining healthy and diverse native forest ecosystems.
Comment #: 95
Timber production should not drive all or even most forestry policies in the state.
Comment #: 96
Agree, but balance effort with resource availability.
Comment #: 97
It would seem we need to determine appropriate uses of wood long before we leverage forests in one part of the world against forests in another part.
Comment #: 98
It will be wonderful day when leading-edge, progressive, ecologically enlightened, sustainably run forest product producers have a decisive worldwide market advantage. This would financially reward the good foresters and punish the bad actors. Of course, this requires chain of possession accounting and much greater disclosure to consumers. If Wisconsin interests embrace this challenge, they could get out front and capture a good share of these benefits. If they resist reform, someone else will claim the profits and the glory.
Comment #: 99
What I disagree with is having this issue stated this way. It is a value laden statement - almost like a "conclusion." Let your statewide plan development process guide you either to this, or away from it.
Comment #: 100
Sustainable forestry is important but please note that this is separate from certification.
Comment #: 101
#9
Comment #: 102
We should become known the world over as a center for sustainable forestry.
Comment #: 103
We know this to be a fact-your addressing it in a plan only means you are repeating yourself.
Comment #: 104
This only makes sense if it can be done in a way that does not jeopordize our our state resources.
Comment #: 105
As long as the local sustainable resource is not damaged global support is desirable.
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS