Mfl closed

[rocksnstumps]

No wonder there is still some confusion on what the current regs are. I pulled the stumpage info right from the current web site and the you will notice the link is to the official DNR site which does mention somewhere that things are changing. Well get with it and get the right info on there! Sorry rant to DNR, not to others trying to give out the best info.

I have heard the deer blind wording is still being looked at. Mostly at the grey area if a tower stand or other permanent "structure" is legal. Think tree stands are not in question.

 

[St. Croix]

We just reenrolled 80 and added another 80 new. Things have really changed with mfl in the past year. No more limit to 80 acres per landownership. And I do believe the stumpage fee went bye-bye. We worked with a private forester on the plans and he was very easy to work with and had us review the plans prior to submittal to the dnr. You can keep out any areas for potential devt and also include areas of no mgt. The no mtg areas I believe cannot exceed a certain % though. Talk with your local forested for the complete list of mfl change prior to making a final decision though.

 

[QDMWRKS]

When we enrolled ours, you could use the DNR forester to do your plan for $100 or you could use a private forester. I believe that was another change to the program and now you have to use an outside forester. I don't agree with the reduced penalty for withdrawing from the program. What is the point of giving an owner decades of tax breaks if they can pull out and pay less than what they've saved?

 

[rocksnstumps]

The DNR has not done MFL plans by law since like 2007 or so. Mine was done during that time and cost $300 for DNR to complete. Going rate for private forester is dependent on acres involved but easily $600-$800 and up now.

 

[JT's Outdoors]

When we enrolled ours, you could use the DNR forester to do your plan for $100 or you could use a private forester. I believe that was another change to the program and now you have to use an outside forester. I don't agree with the reduced penalty for withdrawing from the program. What is the point of giving an owner decades of tax breaks if they can pull out and pay less than what they've saved?

I am somewhat on the fence on this particular change. On one hand I agree with your point that landowners should be liable for the benefits they received. There is an argument to be made that makes sense however. The goal of the program is to encourage landowners to manage their timber to ensure a constant supply of fiber because the industry is critical to the State's economy. If a landowner is in the MFL program for 20 years and decides that they want out of the program for whatever reason it is probably too harsh a penalty to charge them for all 20 years worth of tax savings plus interest. They did follow the program for 20 years and in that time grew timber, which satisfies the objective. I don't remember off the top of my head, but I believe that the maximum repayment is 10 years which potentially seems like a good compromise. The pitfall is that the landowner could choose to never harvest any of the timber which is not only a bad choice habitat-wise, it deprives the State of the economic opportunity. Or the landowner could harvest in an unsustainable manner which means they make a ton of money and the property may not generate timber for many decades, if ever.

This change was driven by a forest landowner special interest group that got the attention of the legislature.

In my opinion, it probably deserved more careful thought and additional assurances before it was changed. I was involved in several of the other changes that came about as part of act 358 and the legislature dropped the ball on them by not understanding the changes that they were about to make.

 

[rocksnstumps]

This change was driven by a forest landowner special interest group that got the attention of the legislature.

In my opinion, it probably deserved more careful thought and additional assurances before it was changed. I was involved in several of the other changes that came about as part of act 358 and the legislature dropped the ball on them by not understanding the changes that they were about to make.

The change just previous to this was driven by a non forest owning non-landowner special interest group that also got the attention of the legislature with probably the same words of more careful thought needed to apply.

 

[JT's Outdoors]

The change just previous to this was driven by a non forest owning non-landowner special interest group that also got the attention of the legislature with probably the same words of more careful thought needed to apply.

There haven't been any changes in regards to withdrawal from MFL prior to Act 358.

 

[rocksnstumps]

True about the withdrawal part, but to repeat what I had posted in another recent thread on here

Just remember that MFL is a forestry program to promote availability of sustainable forest products for future generations. No short term anything about growing trees. MFL is a forestry program, not a public hunting land program as it's primary focus and helps support a multi billion dollar industry to the state economy

"Hunting is big business in WI". Not really, $2.5 billion/year for ALL hunting types.
"But tourism is a HUGE part of the WI economy". Sorry, big but not huge with ALL tourism related stuff $19.3 billion/yr.

Fact: WI is the #1 state in the US for paper products and wooden furniture
Fact: WI forests are 57% privately owned
Fact: Raw materials for WI forest products are supplied 64% from private land.

Fact: Forest related products impact the WI economy $24.7 billion/yr.

So to say they don't get their tax worth is kinda ignoring the fact that many, many people have their entire careers impacted by the forest products industry. And those $billions get taxed in some fashion by the state, don't worry about the state and feds missing that opportunity

 

[JT's Outdoors]

I agree wholeheartedly that people, particularly hunters miss the whole point of the tax law programs. The primary reason they exist is to ensure a long term source of wood products for Wisconsin's economy. Without it Wisconsin would look like Detroit in short order. Recent estimates have shown that the timber industry has overtaken agriculture as the number one economic force in WI. I constantly hear that landowners should get zero tax breaks if they don't open their property to hunting and the overblown importance of hunting to the economy that rocksnstumps mentions. Hunting may be part of our heritage, but in the grand scheme of things it is minor in terms of economic impact.

 

[shawnv]

WI estimates: Forestry $24.7 billion, Ag $88.3 billion.

 

[shawnv]

It's not just about growing trees.

"Wisconsin’s Managed Forest Law (MFL) is a landowner incentive program that encourages sustainable forestry on private woodlands in Wisconsin. Together with landowner objectives, the law incorporates timber harvesting, wildlife management, water quality and recreation to maintain a healthy and productive forest. Sustainable forest management benefits Wisconsin’s economy, hunting, fishing, wildlife, recreation, soils, waterways, and air quality, and renews our beautiful forests for everyone to enjoy."

 

[Bluecollaroutdoors]

I am completely willing to play by the rules of the contract. I guess it would just be nice if the rules were crystal clear so I didn't have to call a lawyer to see if I can cut a tree down or not :)
I wonder what a forester would say about the 50 or so ironwoods trees that we have on the west end of our hardwoods? I cant imagine as slow as they grow that they will ever be of any timber value. I know my saw hates them.

 

[Bluecollaroutdoors]

It's not just about growing trees.

"Wisconsin’s Managed Forest Law (MFL) is a landowner incentive program that encourages sustainable forestry on private woodlands in Wisconsin. Together with landowner objectives, the law incorporates timber harvesting, wildlife management, water quality and recreation to maintain a healthy and productive forest. Sustainable forest management benefits Wisconsin’s economy, hunting, fishing, wildlife, recreation, soils, waterways, and air quality, and renews our beautiful forests for everyone to enjoy."

I like that. I always thought the whole purpose of the program was just to make sure we still have some woods left in 100 years and we are not all looking at houses piled on top of houses.
Much like we are not supposed to be filling in wetlands to be replaced with your shed or whatever. Just another way to preserved some nature for the future.

 

[JT's Outdoors]

I am completely willing to play by the rules of the contract. I guess it would just be nice if the rules were crystal clear so I didn't have to call a lawyer to see if I can cut a tree down or not :)
I wonder what a forester would say about the 50 or so ironwoods trees that we have on the west end of our hardwoods? I cant imagine as slow as they grow that they will ever be of any timber value. I know my saw hates them.

The forester would call removing ironwood timber stand improvement and would encourage it because it is improving the timber. Even cutting firewood is allowed as long as it's for personal use. Hopefully the landowner is selecting the right trees and doing themsef a favor, but technically they csn cut whatever.

 

[Bluecollaroutdoors]

I would agree with that statement. We cut very little standing live wood. Plenty of blowdowns and standing dead ash to make a fire here. We did cut down some mammoth hemlocks the last two years to open the canopy up a bit but I am talking about 75 out of 500 or more and they were growing on top of each other typically.

There was a statement in our contract about those being good for wild life bit they are mature 50 year old trees now and nothing will grow under them and that canopy.

 

[Camp 2 Dukes]

Can I ask what the going rate for a Private Forester to write the plan is currently? Any recommendations?

 

[Big Snow Man]

$500 to $1000

 

[JT's Outdoors]

Can I ask what the going rate for a Private Forester to write the plan is currently? Any recommendations?

It will vary widely and depends on the acreage involved. My base rate is $500 plus $5/acre. I will adjust the per acre rate if the plan is very simple. For example I had one plan last year that was 40 acres of the exact same timber stand so it was pretty easy.

There are some that charge a lot more and some that charge less.

 

[gwm]

A friend of mine just had one written on his 126 acres and I think he said he paid $1,200.

 

[Camp 2 Dukes]

Thanks guys. Good info. A friends father passed and 3 of us bought the 142 acre farm. We split the property 3 ways as the son got his 40 given to him another friend bought a 40 and I bought the rest. Mine is zoned ag son no MFL. The other 2 40s are 90 + % wooded and need a plan. One 40 will be clear cut the other is a little more complicated with a nice piece of hardwoods. My piece has some woods I want logged. We had the state forester out he walked through it. He seemed very helpful. He would not make a recommendation as to who to call but did tell us one of the loggers / plan writers we were looking at he had heard good things about. That logger came out walked the 2 40s and my wooded I explained I wanted mine logged and we wanted plans written then logging done on the 2 40s. He gave us his recommendation and said he would write the plan for the 2 40's for $500 per 40. He also said he would log mine and clear cut it in sections over time which was great. My friend was supposed to get him his information on the property by late may so he would have time to write the plan. Well he didn't get him the information until very late may (his bad) and the logger said it was too late to write it that year. He said OK. Well the the logger sends me a bill for $300 for his time walking the property and said it could be applied to the plan when he writes it. I get wanted to be paid for your time but I called him to get a logging contract on mine. No contract was sent, it seems he just wanted to write the plan and not really interested in logging. I am a contractor so I get wanting to get paid for your time but I have never been able to charge someone for doing a walk through so I can quote a job and then send them a bill if they don't hire me, all without their consent to pay me. It really bummed me out as he seems as though he would do a good job. If he had sent a logging contract I probably would not have minded being charged for the walk through.