Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association

State Income Taxes Reminder
Recap of SB161 Hearing
Sub-Committee Formed to Study MFL Program
Ag Day at the Capitol
Recap of joint DATCP/DNR Meeting

Many woodland owners have missed opportunities to claim farmland preservation credits. For this tax break forestry is defined as an agricultural use and can be eligible for these state tax credits.

To find out if you’re eligible for a tax credit of $7.50/acre or more, first you need to contact your county land conservation department to see if your land is appropriately zoned. Eligibility requirements include income thresholds. You might also have to obtain a certificate from your county land conservation department stating you meet minimum land conservation criteria.

Almost every woodlot meets conservation requirements. However, many woodland owners often believe they do not meet the income requirements because they haven’t sold any timber to meet the $6000/year ($18,000 over 3 years) requirement. Don’t forget that if you rent land, the income generated by that land can help you meet this threshold.

Tree farmers were heard but not listened to. In a full hearing room on February 9th, the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Higher Education Committee heard 2 hours of testimony on SB 161, the bill introduced as a result of a legislative study committee on updating the MFL.

WWOA testified that, although there are some good components, this bill needs further work. Of special concern was that the proposed bill would increase the tax paid by many landowners entering the MFL and that it did not address many issues we had highlighted as being problems, such as “contracts versus agreements,” yield taxes and others.

Thanks to Joe Arington, John Czerwonka, Doug Duren, Gene Roark, Rudy and Mike Nigl, Lowell Klessig, Bob Weiland and others who testified on this bill. Thanks also to Steve Stevenson, Merlin Becker, Nancy Bozek, John and Sally Ouellette and others on this effort.

Note: WWOA’s testimony and other information on this bill can be found on this page, under "Additional Resources."

Unfortunately, at a February 23 meeting, the Committee chaired by Dale Schultz voted to move this bill out of committee without addressing any of the concerns expressed by WWOA. It is clear we need to do more to get our legislators to understand the importance of updating MFL. Whether this bill will be scheduled for a vote by the full Senate is unknown. It is still possible for the Senate to amend thsi bill should it be scheduled for a floor debate. A companion bill in the Assembly has not had any hearings scheduled to date.

Legislators need to be contacted on this issue. Please contact your legislators and tell them the Managed Forest Law needs to be changed. Private woodland owners need to have an option, other than putting forests back into corn, beans or pasture, which allows them to be able to afford to grow timber, timber desperately needed by our forest products industry.

Other bills: SB126 (Nancy Livingston's bill) passed out of committee but has not been scheduled for a hearing by Senate leadership. The bottom line on this and other bills is that legislators need to continually hear from woodland owners.

Even if no action is taken this session on SB161 and AB402, work to improve the Managed Forest Law will continue. At its first full meeting February 15th, Chairman Henry Schienebeck established a sub-committee to provide recommendations on improving the managed forest law. Richard Wedepohl (WWOA) will work to set up this group. Members expressing an interest to participate included Representative Jeff Mursau, Mark Sherman (Plum Creek), Kimberly Quast (Consultant Forester), Troy Brown (Kretz Lumber), James Hoppe (pulp and paper), Tom Hittle (Society of Foresters). Other interest groups and DNR staff will also participate.

Other discussions at the meeting highlighted the importance of working with private landowners to obtain needed material for the forest products industry. There is interest in seeing what’s learned with the driftless area project. Some of the industry representatives said they’re having difficulty finding wood, such as soft maple.

On the other side, it was pointed out that some consultants have been having trouble finding buyers for their sales. Red oak is an example, with a “temporary” glut on the market, related to some China interactions.

Other issues discussed included the problems with fragmentation, problems with economies of scale, getting agreements made, costs associated with establishing boundaries, winter only harvesting, etc.

There was discussion on the biomass harvesting guidelines. Bill Horvath provided much needed input on past work on this and how biomass harvesting guidelines could affect landowners in the MFL. Currently this effort is still in the study phase. Whether they become mandatory practices or are used more simply as “planning considerations,” remains to be seen.

Discussions at the Farm Bureau-sponsored Ag Day emphasized the importance of telling legislators that continuing use-value assessment is important, despite the fact there are no bills pending. Other issues included raising weight limits for manure haulers, supporting the relaxed wetland bill and supporting a hunting season on wolves and sandhill cranes.

The DNR and Department of Agriculture Boards held a joint meeting on February 21st where information was presented on Chronic Wasting Disease, Farmland Preservation, Nutrient Management, and Spray Irrigation of Manure, followed by board member discussions. An observation: The term “working lands” was often used in dialogue, but the discussions did not talk about, or address, issues facing Wisconsin’s tree farmers.

Status of Legislation
Stakeholder Meeting with Dr. James Kroll (deer trustee)
Ag Day at the Capitol
What Others are Saying

SB 126 – The Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Higher Education Committee, Chaired by Senator Dale Schultz, held a hearing on this bill January 10. SB 126 was introduced by Senator Julie Lassa after a fire destroyed much of WWOA member Nancy Livingston’s tree farm. The bill is intended to offer some relief for those who experience catastrophic losses by extending the time period for payment of yield taxes and allowing a landowner to extend their current MFL agreement by 10 years.

This bill offered us an opportunity to testify in front of the same committee which has SB 161 assigned to it. Following testimony by Senator Lassa, WWOA members Merlin Becker, Gene Roark and Richard Wedepohl testified in support of this bill. We also offered suggestions that the bill could be simplified by allowing more land to be kept in the MFL. The bill was amended and somewhat simplified. On January 20th the committee unanimously passed the bill out of committee. It is now available for scheduling for a vote by the full senate.

A thank you has been sent to the members of this committee (Senators Schultz, Harsdorf, Kedzie, Moulton, Hansen, Shilling, and King).

SB 161 and AB 402 – No hearings have been scheduled. WWOA is working with the Great Lakes Timber Producers and Lake States Lumber Association on how we hope this bill proceeds.

On January 11th, WWOA members Dave Hall and Dale Zaug attended a stakeholders meeting with Dr. Kroll and two colleagues, deer biologists Gary Alt from Pennsylvania and Daniel Guynn from South Carolina.

During this all-day meeting, attended by over a dozen different hunting and timber production groups, Dr. Kroll explained the process they’ll follow with a preliminary report due in March and the final report due in June. He also indicated he was honored to have this opportunity and said he would continue to follow this effort after the report is finished.

Discussion ranged widely given the different perspectives of the group present. Everyone was heard and dialogue was courteous amongst attendees. We talked about having the need to control deer populations where they became a problem. We also emphasized the importance of active forest management that also provides better deer habitat. WWOA will provide follow-up information to Dr. Kroll and continue to be involved with this effort. Click here to visit the Dr. Deer website.

Tree farmers should consider attending this event. Ag Day at the Capitol will be held February 8 at the Monona Terrace in Madison. Ag Day at the Capitol is the largest gathering of farmers from across the state representing a variety of farm groups to learn more about state issues and meet with their state legislators. Hot topics on the legislative plate are expected to be agricultural economic development, use value as-sessment of farmland, animal welfare and environmental issues according to the Wisconsin Farm Bureau. Register for Ag Day by calling the Wisconsin Farm Bureau at 1-800-261-3276. More information available here.

Hot legislative topics and WWOA's active role in the discussion is generating more discussion. See below for comments from WWOA members Fritz Corsemeier and Doug Duren.

- Corsmeier comment: "Thank you for the update regarding the Government Affairs section. As a woodland owner I am particularly interested in forest land taxation as compared to taxation of other agriculture lands. With dairy and grain farmers paying from $0.57 to $4.73 per acre for land taxes, it is interesting to note that the representative of the state legislature could not explain why woodland owners pay from $24.00 to $75.00 per acre in taxes. Why are tree farmers treated differently than other farmers? If the general public was made aware of this disparity, and the issue was put to a statewide vote, I suspect the disparity would be quickly changed.

My contract in the MFL program ends as of December 31, 2011, and at age 75 I have elected to not renew the contract. My projected taxes for 2012 for a 40 acre parcel are $1600.00. Obviously it is not feasible to maintain a tree farm on this basis, particularly since my use of the property is limited to growing trees. (I do not use the property for recreation or hunting, but allow others to hunt on my property, particularly one wheelchair bound hunter.) At the present time my options are to hope for tax relief via the state legislature, or to clearcut the land and then sell the property. Having invested a considerable amount of personal time and effort to convert a property that had been abused into a productive woodlot, I am extremely reluctant to clearcut the land and then sell the property. If I could be treated for tax purposes in a manner corresponding to other farmers, the land will remain productive. The other options are very discouraging.

I trust that many other woodland owners are of a similar opinion. For those woodland owners who own property simply for recreational purposes such as hunting or snowmobiling, perhaps taxes are secondary issues. For those of us attempting to grow trees at a profit, there is a considerable amount of unfairness in the present situation. Tree farmers should pay a fair amount of tax as should other farmers. One group (tree farmers) should not be expected to subsidize another group (dairy and grain farmers).

Hopefully WWOA will take an aggressive role in addressing this inequity. Thank you for your help in addressing issues facing woodland owners."

- Duren comment: "I think MFL is overall a good program and I’m glad to have land enrolled. The biggest objections I hear in my contact with landowners is the ”gun to the head” element regarding the use valuation tax structure and the property tax burden on productive woodlands. Unfortunately there is a perception with some that it is DNR’s fault that the property tax structure has changed so as to motivate (some say blackmail) woodland owners into signing up. Sigh, basic civics lessons are needed about who legislates and who administers. I do what I can to explain to other landowners the role of DNR vs. the legislature and the motivations and effort behind use valuation.

Because on our farm we have land that falls in almost all of the major rural tax classifications (Ag, Ag-forest, Ag/pasture, productive forest - now in MFL, other/residential) I feel like I can offer a somewhat balanced perspective.

Unfortunately, there are major issues with a tax classification structure that can encourage poor land management, but that is the case. For instance, I could clear cut parts of our woodland, plant corn or other crops, reduce the taxes to a couple dollars per acre on that new “Ag” land and change the classification of the rest from Productive to Ag Woodland. Or put a fence around it and pasture it. Believe me, we considered it, as I know others have and some did. Again, not the DNR’s fault, but frustrating and counterproductive none the less. The legislature seems unaware of these issues or unwilling to rectify the situation.

I disagree with some of my friends in the outdoor community, like the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, when it comes to public access to MFL lands and limits on the amount of land that can be “closed."

I don't buy the argument that because landowners, no matter how large, are enrolled in a program, like MFL, or any other program where the primary goal is conservation or sustainable forestry, etc. and are getting "benefit" from that enrollment, that land should be opened to mostly uncontrolled public access for any kind of recreation. I would clear cut and plant corn before I would allow uncontrolled public access. I can't name another program that requires the land be open or limits the amount of land that can be enrolled and closed. Why would a landowner give up property rights like that without a "gun to their head" (property tax relief)? I think the WWF is dead wrong if they are insisting that be part of conservation legislation. The VPA or something similar is the vehicle for encouraging more private land being opened. I know it's a federal program, but I have land in CRP that is paying over $80.00 per acre that is taxed at less than $3.00 per acre because its Ag land. I can restrict access to it and/or lease it out for hunting or any other recreation if I like, and I, as a landowner, retain property rights. Everyone wins. Seems pretty sensible and fair to me.

The rest of my premise is pretty straight forward: Allowing land owners enrolled in MFL (or any other program) to lease the hunting or other recreation rights does allow for limited public access. Leasing land is much more affordable than buying it, which gives a less expensive opportunity for quality hunting without the unknowns of completely open/public lands (I trust I don’t need to list those); the landowner gets to control the access to their land while “doing the right thing” by being enrolled in a sustainable management program; more taxable income is created.

I also think bigger issues are addressed: Parcelization of land and the resulting fractionalization of the large landscape features are encouraged by the restrictions on MFL “Closed” limits and leasing. The biggest landholders in the north woods outside of National State and County forests, are paper companies and the like. An additional revenue stream for them ( as is the case in many southern states ) could encourage them to keep large blocks of land; discourage parcelization and fractionalization; allow more public access and generate taxable revenue.” NOTE: Duren will be making a presentation at the Blackhawk Chapter Meeting, Thursday January 26, Cottage Grove.

Status of Pendling Legislative Bills
SB 161 – No hearing has been set. Senator Schultz continues to express interest in hearing and understanding WWOA’s position on the bill. We’re suggesting a joint meeting of the Senate and Assembly committees; given the limited understanding of MFL by some of the newer committee members, this could provide a good forum for clarification.

SB 126 and AB 342 – No action has been taken on either of these bills. Since both involve MFL related issues, attention seems to be more focused the comprehensive revisions being proposed in SB 161 and AB 402.

Assembly Bill 402, which is the companion bill to Senate Bill 161, was introduced on December 1st and referred to the Assembly Committee on Forestry. Forestry Committee members are:

Thomas Tiffany, Vice-Chair, Hazelhurst, (608) 266-7694, Rep.Tiffany@legis.wisconsin.gov

This bill will follow a parallel path in the Assembly with SB 161 in the Senate. Already some WWOA members have been in touch with their representatives regarding this Bill. Special thank you to Will Kiefer – I received a phone call from Representative Bewley who asked several questions about woodland issues. We’ll meet with her in the near future.

At the Bad Axe Chapter’s meeting November 5, WDNR Forestry Division Administrator Paul DeLong provided an excellent presentation on the importance of forestry to Wisconsin’s economy. (We'll post DeLong's slides soon.)

Following his presentation, Paul DeLong, Senator Dale Schultz, and Representative Fred Clark sat on a panel and answered questions from WWOA members. Having this type of direct interaction with legislators is critically important for furthering action on WWOA’s issues.

I recently had the opportunity to visit some beautiful land owned by Representative Jeff Mursau near Crivitz. Jeff owns both wooded land (he’s working with a forester to help manage it) along with grass/shrub land that was classified as Forest rather an as Undeveloped by his assessor. He’s also considering MFL but has yet to decide if any of it should be enrolled. We toured his property and reviewed information from his tax bills to see if his land was correctly classified.

Later that day at the Towns Association meeting (see below), I had a similar discussion with one of the Town Board representatives. He indicated that he had wanted to enroll his “swamp” land in the MFL because it was taxed as Forest. He was told by a DNR forester that it didn’t qualify because it could not produce the commercial forest products needed for entry. Armed with information from the forester he may go back and contest this classification with his assessor, hopefully to see it more correctly identified as “Undeveloped.” More information on this topic available here.

WWOA was invited by Rick Stadelman to attend the December 2 Wisconsin Towns Association Board meeting to discuss WWOA’s positions on MFL changes. This meeting was very cordial and we had good discussions with the directors. These town officials recognized the benefits provided by forests and are generally supportive of the need to keep Wisconsin’s woodlands well managed.

Since there has been some opposition in the past to the MFL by towns who fear land being taken off their tax rolls, I provided information on each of their towns on how much MFL affects their tax base. (Information shared with town officials available here.) When one looks at these numbers, almost always you’ll see that the land enrolled in MFL is very limited as compared to the other lands that receive a reduction in taxes. In addition, taxes on forest land in these examples ranged from $24/acre to $75/acre. This compares to taxes on agricultural land that ranged from $0.57/acre to $4.73/acre. At the end of the meeting I asked this group “What do you tell a landowner who plants trees on marginal farmland that their property taxes will go up anywhere from 5 to 70 times?” One representative responded saying, “That’s a problem, I don’t know the answer.”

On December 13, the newly appointed Council on Forestry held its first meeting. We met in Minocqua in conjunction with the Governor’s Northern Wisconsin Economic Development Summit. Thanks to support from WWOA and help from Bill Horvath, I agreed to serve as the private woodland owner’s representative on this committee. Click here for Governor Walker’s press release on his appointments to this Council.

The agenda included updates from the DNR on biomass harvesting guidelines, forestry research, and Division of Forestry Strategic Ops plan. An update on the NW storm recovery was provided. The DNR’s perspective on this is that it is going fairly well at this time and that concerns related to “flooding the market” seem not to have materialized.

To conclude the meeting we were all asked to provide ideas on priority issues and agenda items for the next meeting. I handed out copies of WWOA’s position statement on SB 161 along with a copy of the Council on Forestry’s testimony provided to the Legislative Council Study on MFL. I noted that WWOA identified similar issues as the Council and that many of these issues had not been addressed by the current version of pending bills in the legislature.

Several contacts have been made with Dr. James Kroll (WDNR Deer Czar), who will be setting up meetings with landowners in January. Blackhawk chapter has offered to host one of these meetings. No further details are available at this time.

DNR Forestry Operations Plan
Assembly Bill 342
Wisconsin Outdoor News Article on MFL

DNR Forestry Operations Plan
WDNR Forestry Division Administrator Paul DeLong has asked that we distribute the DNR's proposed operations plan to as many interested people as we can. You can read the plan here.

DeLong is asking for responses by Nov 18. We have not yet looked closely at this plan or developed a response. One point of emphasis we’ve always had is supporting the need and importance of having field foresters being available to work with private woodland owners. The plan has limited changes being made until more “program efficiencies” can be found.

1. What work that is important to our ability to implement our Strategic Direction have we overlooked? Please explain why the work is important in your opinion.

2. Are there changes in how we are proposing to allocate resources that could better address the program intent statements outlined in the Strategic Direction? Please explain why you believe your suggestion for allocation is better than what is proposed.

3. Are there opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness in program implementation that we have overlooked? Please explain how your suggestion would increase efficiency and effectiveness.

Please send your responses to the above questions to Rebecca Gass, PO Box 7921, Madison WI 53707 or Rebecca.gass@wisconsin.gov by November 18th, 2011. If you send in comments, please copy me on those as well. Thanks.

Assembly Bill 342
A hearing was held on AB 342 on Tuesday, Nov 1. This bill came up as a bit of a surprise to us but thanks to Nancy’s contacts with Tim Gary (staffer to Representative Jeff Mursau), we were able to provide testimony on this bill.

Although it is a relatively minor bill in the big picture in that it proposes only to make some clarifications on building options available to landowners who enrolled land in MFL prior to 1998, it was important in that it gave WWOA some visibility. (Read the bill here.)

In the testimony we provided we were able to emphasize one issue we’ve identified as important – contracts versus agreements. We emphasized that landowners who are entering the MFL need confidence that what they agree to when they sign up will honored and not arbitrarily changed by the legislature in the future without any recourse. Our testimony, which we provided for informational purposes, can be found here. I think it was well received and the committee is looking at making some changes to the bill in response. We’ll keep you informed of any future actions.

The members of the Assembly Forestry Committee are: Representative Jeffrey Mursau, Chair (Crivitz), Tom Tiffany Vice-Chair (Hazelhurst), Mary Williams (Medford), John Murtha (Baldwin), Nick Milroy (South Range, Douglas Co), and Janet Bewley (Ashland).

Of special note, Representative Mursau chatted after the hearing, wanting to know about joining WWOA and asking questions about the MFL since he’s pondering entering some land he owns into the program! Any WWOA members in his district who would like to help? Let us know.

In the October 7, 2011 issue of Wisconsin Outdoor News, there appeared an article written by Don Bluhm on Senate Bill 161. In it, Don encouraged readers who hunt on MFL land to pay special attention to this bill given that it proposes to reverse the recent prohibition to leasing of lands enrolled in MFL. In a follow-up phone conversation and email to Don, we emphasized, as Mark Rickenbach pointed out in the article, that the MFL is primarily a program that was designed to encourage timber production and the use of sound forestry practices.

It’s clear there is not yet a broad understanding of the discrepancy in property taxes paid on forest land compared to agricultural land. We need to continue to point out that there are 12.2 million acres of agricultural land that is taxed at $3/acre or less and there are no public access requirements or long term agreements associated with it. Compare this to forest land that is taxed at an average of $34/acre, or $8/acre for land currently being enrolled in the MFL.

Putting taxes into perspective
Members Continuing to make Contacts, More Needed
Discussions with Representative Fred Clark and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation's George Meyer

Putting Taxes into Perspective
Town officials have long been concerned with the MFL taking land off of the local property tax roles. However, over the last 10 years the landscape has changed dramatically and now taxes on forestland greatly exceed those being paid on other rural lands.

Working with the Wisconsin Towns Association is critical to putting together changes to the MFL. With help from Howard Garves, WWOA member and Chairman of the Town of Sparta, we were extended an opportunity by Rick Stadelman to meet with the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin Towns Association on December 2. Finding ways to balance taxes with services received is critical to maintaining a vibrant forest industry in this state.

To see data on taxes for your town, go to the Wisconsin Department of Revenues home page. Click on “Reports” in the left hand side column. Then click on “Assessment”. Next click on “Statement of Assessments – 2010” . Click on your county and then scroll down to find your town. Click here for a direct link.

For example, in Iowa County, Town of Arena, there are 2922 acres of forest that has a total assessed value of $10,133,000. (This works out to forest land being valued and taxed at $3468/acre). As a comparison, the 25,184 acres of agricultural land has a total assessed value of $4,312,100 (Taxed as if it is worth $171/acre).

What we’re trying to do with this information is to help people understand how MFL fits into the big picture. Town officials are usually aware of land being put in MFL but do not always have the details of how it directly affects their finances. Unfortunately some town officials have incorrectly stated in the past that lands in MFL are causing significant decreases in their tax base. SB 161 also proposes some changes on how “closure fees” are distributed, something that could help local governments.

Members Continuing to make Contacts, More Needed
Steven & Lois Raether, thank you for contacting Senator Terry Moulton and having him attend the annual meeting. Not only did he add much to the banquet, he also accepted Jim Zdanovec’s invitation to become a new WWOA member. Terry said he is now looking forward to meeting with a forester to review management opportunities with the 300 acres of woodland he owns in the Eau Claire area.

Thanks to WWOA’s Bad Axe Chapter members, Senator Dale Schultz has indicated he will be attending the chapter’s annual meeting on November 5. Also attending are Paul DeLong and Representative Fred Clark.

Although Senator Schultz has a great deal of interest and understanding of woodland issues, he needs support from the other members of his committee. They need to know about WWOA’s concerns and what changes we’d like to see with the MFL and other legislative issues.

At this point in the legislative process, contacting the committee members below is essential. We need WWOA members to help! If you live in or own woodland in any of these senator’s districts, PLEASE consider contacting them.

Members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Higher Education – The Key Players:

Click here to see what areas their districts cover, then click on their name (for legislative information) to learn details. Email is an easy way to contact these Senators. Let them know you are a private woodland owner who is concerned about upcoming legislation. Of course, an even better way is to talk to them while you’re taking a walk through your woods with them and a forester!

When contacting them by email or letter, consider attaching WWOA’s Position Statement on SB 161. And if you do make contacts, let Gene, Joe, or I know. We can easily stop in their Madison office to provide follow-up information and to get to know them and their staff better.

Discussions with Representative Fred Clark and George Meyer
Recently Government Affairs committee chairs Gene Roark and Richard Wedepohl met with Representative Fred Clark. Fred was the initial chair of the MFL study committee from which Senate Bill 161 evolved. Fred expressed some concerns about whether or not changes to the proposed legislation could be done. He recognized that some of WWOA’s positions on the MFL such as “Agreements versus Contracts” and Re-enrollment of Expiring Lands in MFL had merit. His suggestion was that follow-up legislation could be introduced to address these concerns. We hope that WWOA’s recommendations can be addressed with a substitute amendment to SB 161.

George Meyer, Executive Director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, also met with the WWOA Government Affairs Committee recently. George went over our position statement and was generally supportive. His group historically has had concerns related to open and closed land from a public access perspective. We emphasized that just because land may be enrolled in the closed category of MFL, doesn’t mean it is not used by others, often heavily, for hunting and other outdoor recreation. Most woodland owners allow others to use their lands but they do want some control over their property’s use.

In This Update:

Senator Terry Moulton to Attend WWOA's Meeting!
Disappointing State Journal Article

Senator Terry Moulton to Attend WWOA’s Meeting!
Thanks to Lois and Steve Raether for contacting this key committee member. Terry has agreed to provide a welcome prior to the banquet at 6pm on Friday. What Senator Moulton hears from us will be relayed back to Dale Schultz and others on his committee. This first meeting with WWOA will carry a lot of weight.

Yesterday we met with Senator Moulton’s chief of staff Nate Duerkop to go over the meeting and WWOA’s issues. We were very impressed with Nate and am sure Senator Moulton will be well briefed.

Disappointing State Journal Article

Read the article here. Although we had met with Representative Fred Clark three weeks ago and provided him with WWOA’s positions on the bill, we obviously still have some work to do. We sent Fred an email this morning alerting him not to get to far out in front of this since there’s some significant issues needing change with this bill. George Meyer, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, was quoted in this article as well.

There is a belief out there that woodland owners are getting this huge tax break. WOODLAND OWNERS WHO ENTER THE MFL ARE NOT GETTING A HUGE TAX BREAK. Once people seriously look at the table attached to our position statement, things become more clear. Wisconsin woodlands cannot compete with agricultural crop lands where taxes are 1/10th those off woodland. Obviously we must continue to stress that point.

Loren Hanson, Joe Arington, Gene Roark and Richard Wedepohl will be meeting with George Meyer of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation next week to go over our positions. Public access to woodlands has been a key issue for George. We’ll stress the fact that, again, there needs to be equity with croplands and pastured woodlands where there are huge tax breaks with no requirements for public access. Recently we received a letter from the DNR asking if we were interested in a program called Voluntary Public Access, a new program that is focusing on land in priority areas in SW Wisconsin. I believe I received this letter because I recently enrolled some land in CREP (a version of CRP). Because it was previously cropland, my property taxes on these acres will continue to be approximately $2.50/acre. The letter goes on to say that if I’m interested in signing up in this program, I could receive $15/acre for forestland, $10/acre for grasslands and $3/acre for cropland. We’ll let you know what George has to say.

We’re also working with folks from the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, a group that can be very influential with the legislators on bills like this one. We hope to meet soon with them.

Many WWOA members have reached out to their legislators to talk with them about SB 161 and tax issues. Thank you to you all!

In This Update:

Committee Membership Update
WWOA's Government Affairs Committee - Here to Help

Committee Membership Update
Senator Dale Schultz has been appointed Chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Higher Education Committee filling a vacancy caused by Dan Kapanke’s loss in the recall election. This committee will be the first to take up action on changes to the MFL. The democratic membership of this committee is still a bit up in the air but at this time no changes have been announced. There is no news yet on when a hearing might be scheduled on SB 161.

One other bill of interest, SB 126 (member Nancy Livingston’s bill), has also been referred to this same Senate committee. Again no hearings have been scheduled. WWOA’s position on SB 161 includes some aspects of this bill by recommending that yield taxes be based on actual sale price of timber rather than book stumpage rates.

WWOA's Government Affairs Committee - Here to Help
Gene Roark and Rich Wedepohl are happy to meet with any of your legislators or their staff here in Madison. We could provide more detail on WWOA’s positions or answer any questions they might have about the bill’s detail.

Our sense is that the majority of the legislators have only a very basic understanding of issues that affect us. This past year we had a chance to sit in a legislative hearing on an agricultural issue and heard one of the committee members propose that woodland owners in MFL should be given an option to get out early -- if they wanted to convert their land to agriculture. His argument was that it would help the local tax base. We met with him later and showed him that the average tax on agricultural land in his district was $2/acre, half that for pasture land. He thanked me for talking to him to help him better understand the property tax system.

Somehow we need to figure out how to let the legislators know that woodland is being threatened by disproportionately high taxes and that the MFL needs changing in several other ways if it is to remain a viable option for woodland owners.

Back to Top

WWOA Position Statement on SB 161
WWOA’s Board recently approved a position statement on SB 161. Click here to read those positions along with additional amendments we feel are necessary to help maintain the MFL as a good option for Wisconsin and its private woodland owners.

SB 161, drafted by the legislative council study committee, has been introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Higher Education. Current members of this committee are Senators Harsdorf (R, River Falls), Kedzie (R, Elkhorn), Moulton (R, Chippewa Falls), Vinehout (D, Alma), Hansen (D, Green Bay), and Holperin (D, Conover). The committee chair position is currently vacant with Senator Kapanke having lost in the recent recall election.

A public hearing on this bill has not yet been scheduled. We will keep everyone posted as soon as we know when that might happen.

How You Can Help
WWOA can make a difference with this proposed legislation. What is most needed right now is to have legislators being contacted by woodland owners regarding SB 161. A phone call, a letter, and personal visits are all very helpful. Unless our legislators understand why changes to the MFL are needed, they cannot take actions to make them happen. Feel free to distribute WWOA’s position statement on this proposed legislation.

Detail on SB 161 can be found at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/proposals/sb161

To find out who your legislators are and to sign up for notifications on actions taken on SB 161 you should go to the Wisconsin State Legislature’s Home Page at http://legis.wisconsin.gov/

To receive e-updates on SB 161, email GovernmentAffairs@WisconsinWoodlands.org.