Tigerton lumber co land staying closed

This is Jerry Ort from TLC. There has been alot of questions about our land and if it will stay closed. We have decided to keep the land closed to the public. The new MFL law says that we can't lease the land out but we can still close it off to the public. We can also give permission to whoever we choose to be on the property. If you don't have permission to be on the property you could be fined for trespassing. Most of Shawano and Waupaca co are closed and some in Marathon co. If you have any questions about what is open and closed you can get most of that information from the DNR. This decision has come from many problems we've had with littering, nails in tree's, and rutting up the our logging roads.

? Nice response slicker. Adding personal insults on topics does nothing for debate. Thanks for the great points. I know little about many things, true, but do know quite a bit about this program. The reason I debate this is because it has a lot to do with the future of hunting and public access to private lands in this state. The more publicly accessible land that is lost, the less hunting opportunities for 99% of the hunters in this state. In my opinion, the future of hunting for our kids is in dire need of programs to allow hunting access, not programs that support wealthy private individuals and businesses through large tax breaks.

Mfl_Advice,

I enjoyed your post, I thought it was very well written and exactly to the point. Don’t let JC get under your skin, that is the only reason he posts, is to debate things that he knows little about. Thank you for adding to this forum!!

I didn't make it sound like that. Just stating some facts.

Closed acreage fees are returned to the state. This program was always meant to be a tax deferment program. Obviously it is a tax break for the landowner, that's what makes it attractive to enter. It has benefits other than open lands including helping support a 20 billion dollar a year forest products industry.

I'm not arguing that open lands disappeared, that's why this law was passed, to take away the incentive to closing previously opened lands (i.e. leasing for hunting).

But that's the problem with these forums, people like to argue, disagree, accuse one of 'making it sound' one way or another. Forget it. Continue with all your conspiracy theories and perceived slights and subsequent discussions.

"but the fee paid to close lands is returned to the state. These fees are used to support programs that buy lands or easements that open more lands to recreation. So the discussion of taxes lost because of the switch to closed is really not applicable. " How do you say that it is "not really applicable?" Of course it is. This is still a publicly funded program to pay the difference between standard tax rates and the MFL-C. The small amount of money paid/acre in the closed vs. open program is SMALL compared to the standard tax rate. Besides, if there was an equal amount of money generated from the closed program to open up more public lands in the state, why has the amount of publicly accesible MFL land sharply decreased? This is because the amount of money generated/acre is not large enough to make a dent in comparison to the land that is being taken out of the MFL-O programs. "A percentage of the assessed value of the timber harvest is then returned to the local municipalities to make up for the tax break given the landowner. " Yes, this has been discussed. Awhile back it was also discussed how the percentage of the timber harvest given back to the state is far short of the potential tax revenue of the land had it not been in a MFL program to begin with. Please do not make it sound like the MFL-closed rule changes are making more publicly accessible land available in the state. Since this program was changed, the amount of publicly accessible private land in the several counties I hunt has sharply decreased. The amount of MFL-C land has sharply increased, and it has especially increased greatly on land that never was in any FCL or MFL program at any time in the past.

Hello everyone,

Like a lot of these forums there is a lot of good information mixed with some misinformation throughout these posts.

First, it is important to note that MFL is not a contract. FCL is a contract. MFL is lands being designated, leaving the legislature the ability to address issues they have no way of predicting (like the value of hunting leases increasing so dramatically).

Second, the new lease law is really not that new. The original program did not allow landowners to receive anything for allowing hunters to hunt on their lands. Only since 1992, when there was a rule change, was charging for hunting leases allowed. So, essentially, the new law returns the program back to it's original form.

There is a lot of talk regarding the difference between open and closed tax rates. Remember that the base acreage share is returned to the local municipalities but the fee paid to close lands is returned to the state. These fees are used to support programs that buy lands or easements that open more lands to recreation. So the discussion of taxes lost because of the switch to closed is really not applicable.

Also, please remember that MFL (and FCL) was developed to act as a tax deferment program. Taxes not initially paid are deferred until a timber harvest occurs on entered lands. A percentage of the assessed value of the timber harvest is then returned to the local municipalities to make up for the tax break given the landowner. Just something to keep in mind when you are discussing taxes paid/lost/saved etc.

Lastly, remember that what Tigerton initially did was 100% legal. They did not violate any laws in dividing up their ownership and then leasing the lands out. Taxpayers complained about this and the legislature reacted. We will see what happens next but I would not be surprised to see no change to the new law.

mower, that is what the DNR and state don't want - you quitting hunting. I still bowhunt, but gave up rifle hunting now because of the same issue with the MFL law change. There is little place for me to hunt here now, and I cannot rationalize spending so much money on gas to go hunting in areas where there are hunters on every hill. This is why the state is freaking out about this program and why it was recently posed as a question at the last NRB spring hearing. If this keeps up, there will be no more MFL program, less wardens, less game management, less DNR programs, etc. Isn't this a great program? There are only a couple of places left that I can hunt within 40 miles of my house now, and I only bowhunt as during rifle season there just are too many hunters. With the price of gas, if I wouldn't have already bought my archery tag I wouldn't bother hunting at all this year. Several of my family members recently quit deer hunting in the last 3 years too. No legally accessible good places left to hunt near me, but there are miles and miles of woods all around me.

It is because of Jerry Ort that I gave up hunting. I hunted TLC land for years but because he wanted to make more money ($5,000 per 40 acres). I also know of 16 other people that did the same. I was a hunter safety instructor for 12 years, I gave that up. I am now slowly becoming an anti-hunter. Quantity deer management is reason number 2

JC,I have a problem with the state changing the rules mid contact. If they were not happy with what happened with the leasing of land the changes should be made from this date moving forward. Everyone already leasing should be grandfathered in since the state is the ones changing the rules. The state of Wisconsin gave General Motors 30 million dollars in tax breaks for the Janesville plant. From your standpoint I should have received a break on my last truck. Not everyone makes out when tax breaks are given.Lumber companies leasing land and making some money off it might be the difference between staying in business or selling out. With gas over $4.00 a gallon their profit margin can't be that great. How about we go after all the people working side jobs for cash they're not paying taxes, As for people leaving hunting because of lack of public land to hunt on, well that is a good point. However I hunted public land with my boys and we were shot at by another hunter protecting his turf. What do you suppose was my 12 year old sons first statement to my wife when we got home. She would rather us give it up than hunt public again. As I stated before the state gained nothing by changing the rules. It had no business on the budget. The fishing change that was passed on the same budget should not have been on their either and the guy that put it on is backpedaling like crazy now. Mistakes were made and should be changed.

"Well JC put your 10 acre field in the CRP program and the government will PAY you money and you can still post the property. " I don't agree with the CRP program either without allowing public access. If everyone does this, what is going to happen to government funded programs, jobs, schools, etc. Taxes have to come from somewhere. I don't agree with publicly funded programs that don't give a lot of benefit back to the public. "Why was no one complaining about the old forest crop land program.....think about it, just so a few hunters could be allowed access the whole state's population had to pay higher taxes..... using your philosophy. " VERY SIMPLE MY FRIEND: Under the old FCL program I could enjoy any land that was in the program as I paid a portion of the taxes for that land. Not only hunters, but the entire public could enter that land if they wish and at least they have the option. Anybody: hunters, hikers, fishermen walking to a stream, bird watchers, joggers, skiers, etc. IT IS OPEN TO EVERYONE! At least people had the option, and yet I am sure there were some that complained about the tax breaks for "rich" landowners since they never walked into the woods. The "closed" provision doesn't even allow someone to spit on that land. I am paying for that? Nope, not worth it to me to preserve more timber for the landowner to later make a bigger profit on. "Keep in mind the topic at hand; the argument is Tigerton's MFL land that went from open to closed. In the process Tigerton pays a significant more in taxes now than before, the only change is some hunters lost their "public" access. The state has gained more in tax income....did you see your property taxes reduced? I think not. " Significant? That gain in taxes is MINIMAL. You are talking a few dollars here. The amount that is protected from taxes doesn't even compare to the tax rate if it were out of the MFL land altogether. On top of that, it is STILL being funded by the public. Besides, if you truly want a feel for what is going on, research the amount of land that hasn't switched from "open" to "closed", but research the amount of land that was never in a MFL or FCL program before that is now in the "closed" program. Now you will see why my taxes didn't decrease as you say above. I saw the numbers a few months back and it is staggering. This alone dwarfs any tax revenue by a couple of foresters switching from "O" to "C". NEW enrollees into this program that want a private hunting preserve and pay lower taxes is where the true loss of revenue is coming from. I would do the same with this crazy loophole. What is the state's motive? They don't want double dipping. Pretty simple really. Not only are they already getting a tax break and NOT allowing the public to access the public's OWN investment, they are making money by selling the hunting rights. If the law says you cannot do this, then that is the law. Now, you do have an argument on how they can go back on this after people have already signed leases. Don't know the legality of that. Again, what is the state's motive? LOSS OF HUNTERS! The biggest reason in this state why youth are not getting introduced to hunting is the loss of hunting land. When we were kids you could hunt anywhere that was not posted. It was fun to get into hunting then. Now, these kids have to fight for hunting spots with every other person on the few public places left to hunt. The state is freaking out about controlling the deer population, but yet they can't get enough deer shot and enough people in the woods and on to private land. Last year was my last year rifle hunting because of this, and the state just lost another hunter. The FCL and the MFL-O programs were a great way to control the deer population in this state. Sadly it is almost gone and will shrink more and more every year. The state has desperately tried to get hunters onto private land and to shoot more deer and have looked at many options including the MFL law, Open Fields programs, Forest Legacy Programs, Stewardship purchases, etc. The deer population will never be in control if hunters can't get out there. Let the wolves eat I guess....

Well JC put your 10 acre field in the CRP program and the government will PAY you money and you can still post the property.

What the heck....you may qualify for nesting birds and charge a fee this fall allowing access to hunters to shoot those same birds. This is legal in WI.

Leasing MFL is not.

Why was no one complaining about the old forest crop land program.....think about it, just so a few hunters could be allowed access the whole state's population had to pay higher taxes..... using your philosophy.

Keep in mind the topic at hand; the argument is Tigerton's MFL land that went from open to closed. In the process Tigerton pays a significant more in taxes now than before, the only change is some hunters lost their "public" access. The state has gained more in tax income....did you see your property taxes reduced? I think not.

I have "no dog in this fight" but to me it is painfully obvious the state is in the wrong regarding this ordeal. Changing contract midstream on a 25 year program? The land is staying closed....no "public" hunters are being allowed access? What is the state's motive?

It is my opinion that if someone is getting a tax break AT ALL, the public should see some benefit from it since the public is making up the tax loss on this land, because ultimately the tax break is being paid by all those that are not in any MFL land program or simply own a lawn in the country.

This benefit should outweigh the cost that I (ie. the public) am sharing to give these landowners a tax break. This tax break just isn't a dollar or two, but it amounts to thousands and thousands of dollars on most of these parcels. If I am not even allowed to set foot on that land that I am helping cover this much of a tax break for, I don't consider it ANY benefit to me. Why am I paying for a rich landowner's private deer ranch through my taxes? In my opinion, this is complete garbage.

This is why if this law is not changed you will eventually no longer see ANY MFL program in this state as the reason they started this "closed" land provision was to save the program to begin with.. The public is getting close to ZERO benefit but having to pay much higher taxes because of it. There are a shocking amount of lands going from regular private to MFL-Closed lands to get a tax break and to keep their private hunting preserve. If you are not aware, the tax burden in my part of the state because of this is ridiculous. There is always going to be timbered lands in this state, clear-cutting many areas is good for the resource, and getting the input from forest managers is available to everyone. At some point you are going to see a large public outcry because of this program, but what is saving it from starting is there aren't that many people aware of it and know close to nothing about hunting, land ownership, forestry, etc.

If my doctor neighbor who owns 160 acres of prime hunting land, and I have 10 acres of field and he just enrolled from regular private to MFL-Closed, my taxes just increased because I am not fortunate enough to own timbered land and am paying his share of the taxes he just exempted himself from. This guy still doesn't have to let me set foot on his land that has 4 food plots with elevated stands. Glad I am picking up part of the bill so he can have his deer paradise...and believe me he doesn't care squat about his timbered lands, he just cares about having a few extra grand in his pocket to no cost to himself and to still maintain his deer ranch. Pathetic.

Hodag Guys, Tigerton's land is private and was/is enlisted in a 25 year MFL program with the state to help manage the woodlands.....this is to the states benefit to curtail clearcutting and wiping out forest land....now the state comes along Help manage the woodlands? So if in the middle of these larger tracts they clear cut, say 8 to 10 acres here and there, clear the land and put in a food plot, is that considered good forest management?

I think this will be my final post to this thread, and I will sit back and read others thoughts.

I understand and agree that when Tigerton etc. moved from the “open” bracket to a “closed” bracket in the MFL, that they will be paying more in taxes now than before, and that they also are required to pay some amount of taxes on any money generated from hunting leases. My point is that even though they are paying more in taxes at the “closed” rate, they are still receiving a tax break when compared to no enrollment in the MFL….a tax break that is funded (if that’s the proper word) by tax payers. What kind of sticks in my craw a bit is when myself, or any other hunter, is interested in hunting these lands (lands that are receiving a tax break) and then we are also required to pay to hunt it?......it just seems as others have said “double dipping”. I know business is business, but it just comes back to this ethical thing to me that if you’re receiving a tax break on your land, generated by funds from tax payers, you shouldn’t turn around and charge them to have access to it….at least if they (the hunters) aren’t going to be making any money off of their actions on that property.

The last thing I want to see is the MFL go belly up, and that’s why I think it needs to be reworked so that it can accommodate large and small landowners, large corporate holdings and small Mom & Pop properties. How should this be reworded? I don’t know…anything I come up with, I usually can come up with something else to counter that! So, I’m stuck on this one. How about a discussion on that?

Once again it is the difference between the State and the Feds. Different programs set up for entirely different reasons. One to promote conservation and prevent erosion and the other to keep land forested. Total disclosure ; I have put some land into MFL and the land was enrolled in CRP before I bought it.

Well, after nesting season is there a provision for no deer hunting? I think not and the land is allowed to be leased for hunting rights.....even for the birds that nested in the spring. How is that for ironic. You are correct in saying MFL is a state program where CRP is federal. MFL is a tax reduced rate where CRP is a payment made to the landowner. Why allow CPR program holders the right to lease hunting rights and have the taxpayers fund the CPR program? So far the state of WI see's no problem with this. I would think if people are upset with Tigerton's "double dipping" this CRP program would be considered a "higher violation" of "double dipping". Remember Tigerton is paying MORE tax to the state for the right of closure of their property than when it was open to the public, not receiving money for the government as CPR landowners are.