JSOnline Story on "Hidden" Hunting Land

A few weeks ago the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a story on MFL and FCL land, and the title had something to do with "hidden" hunting land. They recently followed up with a story about the owner of Mepps lures who has a ton of Open MFL land surrounded by a ring of Closed MFL land. Of course they are turning this into an issue of tax dodging more so than informing the public on hunting opportunities since a lot of the article I found to be misleading. Since the article ran, they followed up and in that article mentioned that they have had numerous calls about people not getting access by landowners. Apparently a number of legislators are strong arming the DNR into creating a map based database for all to see because of this story. My thoughts on the story are mixed. First, the people who wrote this were never worried about hunting land, my opinion is they just wanted to get after some rich folks who aren't paying their "fair share". Second, like I said I found the article misleading in many ways, primarily because they tried to present an image of this land being a huge secret that requires digging through obscure records with confusing legal descriptions and no pretty pictures. Maybe I'm a little upset because I put a TON of time into researching MFL land on different counties, using GIS and plat books to "pre" scout areas then finally getting boots on the ground and finding a good spot. Now a few lazy people who want everything handed to them are making a huge issue about "hidden" land and it's blown way out of proportion. I even sent a letter to the writer expressing my thoughts, some good and some bad, on the article, and never got a response. Disclaimer: I own no land and almost always hunt public. If you have read the series, what are your thoughts? Not trying to start any arguments here just honestly curious what everyone thinks about it.

At the expense of others who cannot afford much land to begin with.

And the other side is seeking relief from high property taxes on their land.

I didn't agree with cash for clunkers, either. But, those two things are not even close in comparison. One was federal, and one is state. But, both are bad ideas was done to spur the economy, and one was done to... well, who knows why. There is no one who can convince me that there is any benefit what so ever to giving a tax break to someone to manage their land how they probably would anyway, unless they are willing to open it up. In fact, they should pay the foresters for their time and advice, just as they would have to pay a private contractor. This thread is a classic. One side feels the government should take care of them, and the other feels that the government should stay out of a private citizens affairs.

It's very easy to fix this misguided program. Either open the land up and get the tax break, or get out of the program and pay the full tax. The program is getting downright out of hand, at the taxpayers' expense. I will not believe that the salary of the foresters that are handling these parcels is fully covered by the stumpage when they are cut, so that's more money out of our pockets. I think it's time that the state does away with this mess that is called MFL-C.

I remember one time stopping at a apple farm that was on the DNR list of sites to hunt. I show up in normal clothes planning to talk to the owner about how it works and where I should park and such. I pull in and the gate to house was closed so I turn around to leave and this truck chases me down from the barn on other side of property. He cuts me off and blocks me from leaving driveway. The guy gets out and rushes to my truck like he wanted to hit me. I get out and ask him if the owner was around and that is when he just starts screaming at me. He goes on this rant about I am tresspassing and he is going to call the cops. Now I explain to him that nobody is tresspassing and I was trying to go to the house to talk about the hunting land. At this he gets even more mad and tells me that I would have to work on his apple farm for 10 years for free before I could hunt it. He couldn't understand why he always has people showing up to hunt. Well I don't know if he didn't know what he signed up for or what but I left and called the DNR and explained to them that this guy was on the list but was requiring people to put in free labor for the hunting right. First and only experience with it and now I just stick to public or family owned land. http://wisconsin-sportsman.boards.net/index.cgi

Oh boy, good can pop-worms crawling everywhere! Good points. Well, for starters, we are in agreement on ethanol, that's for sure! Especially since prior to ethanol the US had some 700k acres enrolled in CRP, then we subsidize ethanol and farmers take the ground out to grow corn (double dip). Now the CRP acres are approaching a measly 350k acres and there have been obvious negative impacts to both sportsmen & the average citizen alike from those acres coming off. To avoid the risk of degrading the forum far beyond the topic (probably too late, i know), i'm not going to speculate on your business or the tax breaks associated with it and all the others out there. However, to the specific point of natural resource management, I think you know the State's interest & importance of regulating those 'markets'.

So, let me get this straight, I should fund a business - such as the timber industry - with my own tax dollars and be happy to do so? I am not aware of any tax rate deduction on my current place of business (non-timber industry), and in fact it is charged more on property taxes because it is zoned commercial. Why is my company not having their property tax rates reduced at the expense of taxpayers? Why should one industry get tax breaks and another not? Same goes for many of the ag programs out there. I do not appreciate my tax dollars going to supplement the ethanol industry to make it price competitive with gasoline. I say let the markets dictate what they dictate, and keep my tax money out of it. If I am getting taxed to help support the timber industry in the state, I am not seeing where it is helping most of us (taxpayers) support our businesses or helping me out whatsoever. There was already a program in place (FCL) used to support the timber industry while providing a benefit (public access) back to the taxpayers with the associated loss of tax revenue. With the MFL-C program, my taxes are higher simply to support an industry I get no benefit from? That is hogwash. Tourism? The MFL-C program increases tourism? I don't see it. How can a privately held parcel where nobody is allowed to step foot on increase tourism? If you make the argument that these parcels will be developed commercially, who in their right mind is going to start a business in the middle of nowhere in northern Lincoln County? The land is going to be maintained as hunting land in all reality, and will be logged at some point anyway. If it is turned commercial, that benefits the economy more than a 40 acre parcel of wooded land that gets logged every 25 years anyway. When a nation is so far in debt, and my property taxes keep rising, why on earth should the timber industry be entitled to my tax dollars without any benefit to me and most others in return?

JC: You are aware your attempt at an analogy was a comparison of a tax funded public agency's policies on its land holdings to a conservation program offering tax reduction incentives for private lands right? That would be similar to trying to make a comparison between my kids school and my personal tax deductions for my kids as dependents. The 'analogy deer' didn't duck your arrow on that one, you just missed. I am sorry you lost your hunting honey hole, I can empathise, been there and will probably be there again in the near future. In the meantime, I hope our States mfl program will continue to help the state of wisconsin's economy and especially those who's jobs are assisted by its existence, even if they don't realize it.

"Huh? I have no response to this analogy. I would comment on the benefits of trees and clean water to tourism, but I am sure it would end up with a similar response to the one above. " Yes it would.

Just because someone doesn't hunt, doesn't mean they don't have an option to enjoy those lands. It is at least an option for someone. Same can be said of county parks. Would you make the argument that less than 16% of county residents use county parks? They are funded by tax dollars, just like MFL-closed, but a whole lot of people never step foot in a county park yet they pay for them. At least the option exists if they want to enter them. The MFL-closed program is about equal to creating a private county park where the residents (taxpayers) cannot even step foot in them. Only those fortuante enough to have money would be allowed to enter, yet everyone pays for the park. Huh? I have no response to this analogy. I would comment on the benefits of trees and clean water to tourism, but I am sure it would end up with a similar response to the one above. Real simple GP you want the tax break you open your land!!!!!! Buck, I think you are confusing access programs with forestry programs. BTW, I don't own land. GRANDAD: Yes there are definite loopholes in the program, which need to be addressed. My favorite abuse is the "access" path up a vertical rock outcropping to get to the MFL Open.

Grandad its about time this is taken care of.

I have been looking into access problems on County Park land and MFL land for the past year!Just before the Elections I got promises to get back to me ASAP!!I've had contact with 1 State Rep who said he would try to get legistation pushed thru on these matters,BUT he needs HELP!!!My State Senator who was mentioned in the Article NEVER responded even after 3 Calls! The person that wrote the article never returned any of my Calls!After many conversations with the Waukesha County Parks people I was told not to bother them anymore!!!!Suprisingly the parks people were the only ones to act on my concerns,improving parking areas and sinage on the FOX RIVER GREENWAY PROJECT,altho access is still a big broblem!Everyone should Call their Elected officials and push for legislation to get these LOOPHOLES Closed IT IS YOUR MONEY!!!!

Real simple GP you want the tax break you open your land!!!!!!

Yes, 16% hunt. The lands are open for other options for enjoyment also beyond hunting. Just because someone doesn't hunt, doesn't mean they don't have an option to enjoy those lands. It is at least an option for someone. Same can be said of county parks. Would you make the argument that less than 16% of county residents use county parks? They are funded by tax dollars, just like MFL-closed, but a whole lot of people never step foot in a county park yet they pay for them. At least the option exists if they want to enter them. The MFL-closed program is about equal to creating a private county park where the residents (taxpayers) cannot even step foot in them. Only those fortuante enough to have money would be allowed to enter, yet everyone pays for the park. You mentioned tourism as being a factor with this program. How much tourism does posted land bring into the state?

JC you are 16% right on this and i rounded up. Wisconsin's population is 5.7M and there 890,000 'hunters' so we are a small group. This program was meant to provide incentive to the 70% of forests which are privately held to mange using sustainable forestry practices. Sustainable forestry (nearly half of wisconsin is forested) is important to all of the 5.7M wi residents whether they realize it or not. Forestry & tourism are #2 & 3 industries for the WI economy, both of which are positively impacted by these programs. Other benefits include air quality, water quality, stream quality, soil protection and scenery, but it all comes back to the dollar. Now, on to the 16%; there is a difference between tax incentives on open and closed, whether the difference is appropriate, i don't know, i am not an economist. However, a small benefit which only has a max potential to reach 16% of citizens (actually much, much lower because not all hunters use 'public' lands) is present for an additional incentive to private landowners. I have used mfl open lands and have enjoyed my time there and I made the effort to thank them for having it open. There are others who do not treat them or their private lands as well so i can see why they would take a smaller break to keep it closed. As a hunter, I am greatful we have mfl open, but i am not so self-centered that I cannot realize the larger benefit to all of wisconsin than my interest in exploiting (to use something for personal benefit) our wonderful natural resources.