“Do you support legislation that would require all future Managed Forest Law (MFL) contracts to allow public access as currently defined in state
statute?”
MFL participants are concerned about the safety of their families, littering and damage to their property, and liability issues related to public access.
I can understand that but how can you complain about lower property taxes then the rest of us.
Those who entered contracts prior to 2005 pay yearly property taxes of $0.67 per open acre or $1.57 per closed acre of land enrolled. Land owners entered into the program after 2004 pay yearly property taxes of $1.67 per open acre or $8.34 per closed acre of land enrolled.
One small example of a property owner up north.
80 acres of land (opened acres) - $133.60 paid taxes
80 acres of land (closed acres) - $667.20 paid taxes
Compare the rest of us idiots.
.83 acres (not even 1 acre) Lake frontage $1092.00
I guess I shouldn't complain. Our lot, less than an acre, I cannot hunt turkeys, deer, bear, hopefully some day wolf and any other wild critter. I also cannot discharge my guns being within a certain distance from the water or my next door neighbors. But what the heck saps like me keep Diamond Jim going.
Bottom line, (only in my dreams) I think the state should look into and adjust the MFL. I think the charge per acre should be increased. Forest land used to be cheep. $800 - $1000 acre. Now you can't touch forest land for $3000 an acre.
With all the hunting and recreation done, people ought to pony up in property taxes. Give me all the excuses you want but if you own 80 acres up north, you have to money to pay more taxes on it! If you own 80 acres up north, you probably have a cabin on it, maybe a boat, a ATV, a snowmobile. You probably really love your land and you probably can afford it.
It used to be the time when forest land sat vacant. Times have changed and us city slickers jumped on any land they could grab and we paid premium price. Deer hunting every year has what, 600,000 hunters . Land is like gold but what does the state get back. Squat in property taxes.
Don't get me wrong, if I got a 80% discount on my land taxed I would jump for joy. No complaints from me. I would love to pay $1.39 on my land taxes.
Times have changed and if we are that squeezed for tax dollars why not look at MFL.
Even if land owners got a 50 % discount on there taxes they should be happy. but 80% off their tax bill.
OK, all you land owners with your 80 acres up north can bitch. You still have it pretty nice.
If you disagree, let me know. I understand where forest property owners are coming from but as I said before,
TIMES HAVE CHANGED!
If you want to receive Kevin Petersens e newsletter e mail him at Rep.Petersen@legis.wisconsin.gov
Since you did not get Kevins e mail I thought you can read it in full if you want. here it is.
Discussing Managed Forest Law The Wisconsin Conservation Congress and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) held their annual county meetings and Spring Hearings throughout the state on April 14th. Included in the agenda was a slate of advisory questions, many covering areas of local impact for anyone who enjoys the outdoors. At the hearing I attended, one particular question drew the most public input. Conservation Congress question number 61 asked: “Do you support legislation that would require all future Managed Forest Law (MFL) contracts to allow public access as currently defined in state statute?” What exactly is the Managed Forest Law? It is a program which encourages sustainable forestry on private lands by providing property tax incentives. This is accomplished with a binding agreement between the state Department of Natural Resources and the landowner. The program is open to all private landowners with at least 10 acres of woods or forestland that meet three requirements: 1. 80% of the land must be productive forestland capable of producing wood products (can grow at least 20 cubic feet of wood per acre per year). 2. Forests must cover 80% of the land. (A forest is an area currently forested or will soon be regenerated to forests). 3. The minimum average width of the enrolled land is no less than 120 feet. Participation in the Managed Forest Law program requires an approved, written forest management plan and an application fee of $300. The plan may be prepared by either a private plan writer certified by the DNR or a local DNR forester. The contract must outline both mandatory and recommended management practices. For example, tree planting or timber harvesting may be required, while some thinning treatments may be optional. To stay in the Managed Forest Law program, landowners must at a minimum complete the mandatory practices. Livestock grazing on enrolled forest land is forbidden. Contract periods for the program are either 25 or 50 years. If an owner decides to withdraw land from the program before the contract period ends, they will be required to pay a penalty. If enrolled land is sold prior to the end of the contract period, the new owner must either continue the current Managed Forest Law contract or withdraw from the program and pay penalties. Managed Forrest Law participants are assessed property taxes at a reduced rate. A portion of the foregone taxes is recouped by the state collecting a 5% yield tax at the time the timber is harvested. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue estimates Managed Forest Law program landowners can reduce their property tax an average of 80% after paying their harvest assessment. There are currently two choices of enrollment for Managed Forest Law land. Open land allows public access for hunting, fishing, hiking, sightseeing, and cross-country skiing. Closed land is closed to public access. There are limits to the number of acres per municipality (city, town, or village) that land owners may designate as closed. Those who entered contracts prior to 2005 pay yearly property taxes of $0.67 per open acre or $1.57 per closed acre of land enrolled. Land owners entered into the program after 2004 pay yearly property taxes of $1.67 per open acre or $8.34 per closed acre of land enrolled. Let’s return to the Conservation Congress’ private and public land use study committee advisory question: “Do you support legislation that would require all future Managed Forest Law (MFL) contracts to allow public access as currently defined in state statute?” The Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association website states: “MFL participants are concerned about the safety of their families, littering and damage to their property, and liability issues related to public access. Requiring landowners to open land to the public would greatly discourage participation in this program resulting in fewer acres of wildlife habitat and sustainable forests. This would increase fragmentation of Wisconsin’s forests and lead to more forested lands being lost to development.” Attendees at the annual Conservation Congress meetings had a chance to voice their opinion and vote on the issue. Now, I would like to hear your opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment