MFL lands

What is your opinion? Yes, allow timber companies and others to get reduced property taxes and still be able to lease their land. No - do not allow reduced property taxes and leasing of their land.

Anyone who thinks they are paying everyone elses taxes on MFL lands needs to do some reading and learn what the program is all about. They just assume that is why everyone signs up for it is the tax break. Maybe alot of the people who do it aren't foresters and want to get the most productivity out of their woods instead of just letting it grow up to be over mature woods with no new growth and nothing but a big shaded canopy of tree tops. If the program is followed the timber is harvested when it should be which allows for new growth and in turn greatly improves the habitat for the animals including deer. Most people would still own their woods wheather they are in the program or not. For the land owners who aren't in it and beoch about it, no one is stopping you from signing up for it either. And don't say you don't want anyone telling you how to manage your land, because I'm sure you do a fine job of it by yourself!

I am just basing my comment on what my dad (the land is his) told me the way his contract is written he does not have to allow anyone on because of the size

just hope they don't find oak wilt as your land WILL get clear cut this happened to my dad he has 60 acres of land and 35 acres are now barren of ALL of the trees it seems that WI DNR thinks cutting all of the trees down is the best idea and let mother nature start all over this may be a good thing in the long run but it sure makes for an ugly landscape with nothing but tree tops and stumps to look at btw if the land is under 80 acres the land owner does not have to allow hunters on their land I suggest reading the fine print and contacting a forestry expert before signing up

The below article is from a DNR newsletter in regards to the amount of land being enrolled into the MFL program. Haven't seen the actual numbers in awhile, but the increase in the MFL program is purely from the MFL-Closed program where land is off limits to the public. The MFL-Open lands have been decreasing. Remember, more land that is enrolled in these property tax break programs results in the difference in the tax base being made up by everyone not enrolled in the program in these townships. When taxpayers have to pay more on their property taxes to make up for the loss of property tax revenue on these lands, the taxpayer should receive something in return - something as little as allowing access to the land they are basically funding. In my view, the return on investment to make sure loggers have a job isn't worth my increased taxes. Why should I be funding the job security of a logger, or basically paying a landowner with my tax money to keep his land off limits? The return on investment to me is not worth it. As I have stated earlier, the MFL-C program is going to continue to have more and more land enrolled, and the taxes on everyone else's land is going to increase. With a poor economy, taxes rising, and being able to post your land - many landowners are enrolling in MFL-C. The more land that gets enrolled into the program will impact property taxes especially in areas where vast forests are present. Now the program is growing so fast they can't even manage it properly - that will cost all of us even more money starting with this contracted study. The easy solution is to get rid of the MFL-C program, or restrict it to 40 acres per family. "MFL effi ciency study begins The Division of Forestry has contracted with Dovetail Partners to conduct an assessment of the Managed Forest Law (MFL) program to identify effi ciencies that may be gained in the program administration. Due to the popularity of MFL (the program has more than 49,000 individual entries covering over 3.3 million acres), the Division can no longer sustain its current level of oversight without adversely affecting other Division programs. Personnel and budgetary investment cannot keep pace with a program that continues to grow at a rate of 3% each year. Dovetail Partners will be engaging a variety of stakeholders involved with MFL this summer and then recommending solutions this fall regarding effi ciencies in MFL program administration both within the Division’s Forest Management bureau and in our fi eld operations. Dovetail will continue to work with the Division and our partners on implementation of solutions through next spring. For additional information about this project, contact Bob Mather, Bureau of Forest Management Director, at 608/266-1727."

I would gladly report him, but since I only have second hand knowledge of it, my report would mean nothing. If the forester will not listen, take it to his boss. Take it to a local warden, take it to his boss. What this guy is doing is completely wrong, and my advice is to stop at nothing until this guy gets a fine or a visit. You should also keep a written log of when this happened, what the guy said, who you have contacted, whether anything was done, etc. I would also go to that land over and over....just me )

This person is in Vilas county on Star Lake road. I have personally gone into the foresters office and they knew the land owner by first name. Yet, still nothing was done. They must be freinds. CHOKE CHOKE I guess if you have the money to buy extra land when daddy already gave you a 100 plus acreas you can do just about anything. It is a sad time for the small individual sportsman when he has to pay the full taxes on his small 4 acres with home on it and the big guy gets the breaks legally. Anyone want to know this guys exact location, just pm me.

Bigmallard was that in the towm of Winchester by chance near the state line. I have had the same experience with a few of the land owners that enrol in open forest crop land and then put up no tresspassing signs. I have alerted the authorities and they simply did not care.

I personally don't see any benefit to the general public of having MFL land unless it is open for recreational purposes. It may save an area from being developed but that just means some other area will be developed instead. I also don't see any benefit of having the land managed by a forester for a short period like 25 years, should be at least 50. With such a short period people can reap the tax benefits and still just clear cut it when the contract is up. Then enroll again.

There is a fine for kicking people off, or harassing people on MFL-O land. I would immediately report this individual to the DNR.

If he does that they will make him pay back taxes on his land. I'd tell him that if he keeps it up I'll find the correct place to report him. I don't always ask permission for MFL open land, but if the landowner is near by I'll let him know as a courtesy thing.

I know of a piece of land in Vilas county that the land owner has in ( Open ) Forest cropland management. Well the open is a big joke! The owner chases everyone off the land and refuses to give permission to anyone to access the land at any time of the year. Esp. during deer hunting. I even stopped in at the local Wisconsin forestry office to verify the location. They knew how I was talking about and I left with the knowledge that they didn't care if the public was getting the short end of the deal. So this land owner has gotten a private hunting property and reduced taxes. What is your opinion? I know what mine is!!!

You know JC I feel the same way when I see a car driving down the street that I know was bought with "cash for clunkers" money. I feel the same way when I drive by a house that the owners got $7000 plus to buy it. I like to get a chance to use what I pay for too. Maybe those people should have to let us borrow their cars or live with them for a while. Maybe I am just old fashioned too. Mrt.

well said JCWisconsin. Most of the hunters who cannot afford to buy or lease land feel they are being cheated.

Yeah, there is a lot of background articles on the program. Here is a newspaper article on how much one township's taxes went up because of this:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/state_and_regional/article_d96af3bf-008a-50f4-985e-642038cb7e9c.html

Fair? My opinion, no. For those of us who are supposedly using our increased property taxes to sustain a forest we aren't allowed to even set foot in, that is poor government in my opinion. For those that don't mind paying more on their taxes to support private land management where private hunting and food plots for deer exist, and who don't care to even see the land they are funding - the more power to you.

Call me old fashioned, but I would like to use something that I am paying for.

I think there's a lot of issues involved in Managed Forest Law lands that need to be understood before any blanket statements can be made about it. Much as any program, subtle changes have unexpected consequences. Sometimes the changes are internal.....but often external.

In years past, MFL (and the two programs that preceded it) had an identity of large corporate acreage that provided a tax break to owners, and public access to recreate. There was always enrollment by smaller acreage owners, but they didn't have overwhelming public awareness.

As larger public-accessible acreage was sub-divided and sold to new owners, more and more of these new owners opted for a "closed" access to the public. Also, a number of the new owners either opted out of the MFL by paying penalties........or didn't re-enroll when the contract was up.

There are many articles of background information available on the Internet. This is one that does a pretty good job explaining proposed changes, taxation, and shared funding.

http://forestandwildlifeecology.wisc.edu/extension/Publications/107.pdf