Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
E6. Issue: Criteria and indicators for sustainable
forestry being developed.
Comment #: 1
I do not have Appendix 3 more information needed.
Comment #: 2
Earth Summit was a bunch of B.S.
Comment #: 3
need to get the word out to consumers
Comment #: 4
People disagree about (?) sustainable forestry is.
Comment #: 5
Where is appendix 3?
Comment #: 6
great idea
Comment #: 7
Those of us serious enough about our forests to participate in MFL are practicing sustainability in the best sense of
Comment #: 8
Whats it say? Not enough infor provided.
Comment #: 9
Don't let foreigners tell us how to manage our forests!!!
Comment #: 10
I always thought I was managing for sustainability. I should have been fined if I wasn't
Comment #: 11
Enforce
Comment #: 12
If all these questions are to be addressed - it'll take years - start with whats important and a lot of extra help which taxpayers can't afford
Comment #: 13
Anything less than sustainable forestry is poor stewardship of this marvelous resource!
Comment #: 14
Sustainability criteria will need to be greatly expanded and include tax reform and subsidies.
Comment #: 15
I believe we must go further than SFI, such as smartwood, etc. The practice of converting a stand to a plantation, with the aid of tons of herbicide, is not what we should be encouraging. It is not proper ecosystem mgmt.
Comment #: 16
This is why private landowner's can't sell their own wood to the paper mills. I have done selective logging all my life 10 years old with a crosscut with my dad and now I can't sell any pulp ood to midwest plant at Meccer because of sustainable plan (free enterprise system?)
Comment #: 17
I thought we had enough dope on this. Why more?
Comment #: 18
(I don't seem to have an Appendix 3)
Comment #: 19
I would be interested in seeing a copy of appendix 3.
Comment #: 20
Too much emphasis is being put on the term "develop sustainability criteria". Most tree farmers have practiced this for years and need incentives to continue.
Comment #: 21
Where is Appendix 3? Does sustainability only mean you cut less than you grow? It seems that the only time a forest is not sustained is when it is converted to other uses - WI has increasing acreage and increasing volume - is sustainability an issue?
Comment #: 22
Some of our WI foresters are narrow minded on this issue. Listen to experience for all trends of population
Comment #: 23
Yes! Also manage the urban forest.
Comment #: 24
Nobody should tell someone how to manage there forest unless he requests it.
Comment #: 25
WI already does this
Comment #: 26
And keep it up.
Comment #: 27
I feel it is very important that at some time or another we have one set of criteria that is accepted by everyone and everybody. This should make the cost of practicing "sustainable forestry" more affordable and acceptable by everyone.
Comment #: 28
This issue is bogus; it mandates an artificial and exaggerated cost to the consumer for a product that is indistinguishable. The concept is ripe for exploitation.
Comment #: 29
The criteria must be clear and accepted.
Comment #: 30
As this becomes more political, and subject to more regulatory scrutiny, it is not clear that 'sustainable foresty' will be a useful paradigm much longer - can we ever agree on practical criteria?
Comment #: 31
Let the forest grow, it is not a 50 year corn crop.
Comment #: 32
Make sure these are well thought out for the long-term.
Comment #: 33
Sto using the word "sustainability" and find some other language to use. Regarding the "commitment," I'm unaware of it. Who made it? What for? Is it binding? It is a waste of time and money to keep trying to define "sustainable." Leave that to Webster's and other dictionaries, and move on.
Comment #: 34
Realistic criteria for startup; too often it is storm troopers mentality; the tin hatted bureaucrat pushing authority
Comment #: 35
Sustainability is important. The real decision is what this criteria are selected to tell us.
Comment #: 36
Private or public land??
Comment #: 37
Appendix 3 - where? Sustainable Forestry - when is this practice defined?
Comment #: 38
Tax incentives.
Comment #: 39
Criteria should be very strict toward sustainability and disturbing the forest as little as possible.
Comment #: 40
Who is going to pay the bill for these non productive jobs?
Comment #: 41
Good.
Comment #: 42
2 trees for every 1 taken out in the USA is fact. THAT IS SUSTAINABLE NOW!
Comment #: 43
We'll see how well they do!
Comment #: 44
I think that good mgt. Practices - esp. by small plot owners, will be critical to the future of WI forestry - a strong public education effort is crucial.
Comment #: 45
Forget the urban forests.
Comment #: 46
Great!
Comment #: 47
Info is best solution
Comment #: 48
Grow, cultivate, and harvest are the criteria needed to be a legitimate tree farmer. Tree Farmers of America
Comment #: 49
My thoughts on this have been expressed on previous pages. I AGREE 100%
Comment #: 50
This should be addressed along with certification if you are going to do anything.
Comment #: 51
Given the increase in forest acreage - timber and pulp production and increases in growing stock present it should be obvious that Wisconsin's forest have been and are being sustainably developed. Certainly more can and should be done, but a big problem is telling what is and has been happening, without losing sight of what needs to be done.
Comment #: 52
Sustainable is a lousy term for forestry. We can do most anything and sustain it for a lifetime. Sustain does not suggest getting better, all it suggests is treading water. Productive, improving, and efficient are better adjectives in my book.
Comment #: 53
Sustainable is a lousy term for forestry. We can do most anything and sustain it for a lifetime. Sustain does not suggest getting better, all it suggests is treading water. Productive, improving, and efficient are better adjectives in my book.
Comment #: 54
But as mentioned before, we need to avoid too many different and perhaps conflicting criteria being used by different groups of "certifiers".
Comment #: 55
Are they really being developed for urban forests?
Comment #: 56
Sustainable forestry is very good, however mandating it and meeting commitments through things such as the Earth Summit is definitely the wrong way to go.
Comment #: 57
Let's teach good forest management principles, and encourage wise use of the wonderful resource that the Good Lord gave us, and not get tied into the nonsense that a bunch of liberal preservationists supposedly "committed" to. I don't feel constrained to follow the leading of a politician that I don't agree with.
Comment #: 58
Not sure if general public can provide enough technical comments for this issue.
Comment #: 59
Sustainable forestry is a good goal as would be criteria to measure them, keeping in mind that the criteria are just one piece of the decision making process.
Comment #: 60
It may be more practical to infuse the global perspectives into the appropriate individual issues and address some regional issues instead.
Comment #: 61
Lip service!
Comment #: 62
This issue should be handledoutside the planning p
Comment #: 63
Need to move ahead with this.
Comment #: 64
Most important to have credibility.
Comment #: 65
Sustainability indicators are a really important t
Comment #: 66
I think that requiring forest industries to refore
Comment #: 67
Is this even an issue? Proceed at the
fas
Comment #: 68
It is crucial that these be fair, objective, and s
Comment #: 69
It is crucial that these be fair, objective, and s
Comment #: 70
Urban forests are not going to be cultivated. WI
Comment #: 71
This is important, and these criteria and indicato
Comment #: 72
WE need a Balance
Comment #: 73
I applaud this initiative!
Comment #: 74
Defining sustainability is a necessary step toward
Comment #: 75
The criteria, once developed, should be applied. H
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS