|
|
|
Another part of an inventory is ownership. An example of
ownership types at the Wisconsin level
is below. The resources listed on the
County Data Pages
should be able to help you assess ownership at the county or town level.
Trends in
corporate ownership
are also important to look at, especially
if your county contains significant amounts of industrial or corporate
owned lands. Also while taking an inventory of ownership, the
number of owners
and their demographics
can be important for predicting future
ownership changes and needs.
|
Of the
16 million forested acres in Wisconsin, 57% are owned by
Non-industrial
|
Wisconsin Forestland Ownership, 2003 |
private
forest (NIPF) owners. The rest is County and Municipal,15%;
National Forest,9%; State, 5%;
other Federal,1%; Forest Industry, 7%; Private Corporation,
4%; and Tribal lands, 2%;.1
In addition to these lands there are 2.2 million acres of urban
forest land in WI.2
|
| Since 1997, 94% of Wisconsin's 1.1 million acres of
corporate-owned woodlands have been sold and re-sold as major
corporations begin to divest themselves of their land holdings.
These large blocks of industrial forests are changing hands rapidly.
For example in 1999, the Packaging Corporation of America -- the
owner of the Tomahawk paper mill -- sold off 161,000 acres of
Wisconsin forestland. At least 20,000 acres are being subdivided and
sold.3 |
|
The number of forest landowners is
increasing and parcel sizes of forestland are decreasing.
From 1984�1997 the number of non-industrial private
owners increased 20% to
about 262,000. Yet ownership size is decreasing in Wisconsin
4; 10% of Wisconsin
forestland owners have 100 acre or greater parcels, making up 45% of
the total forest land in WI. On average, 90 percent of owners have
fewer than 100 acres of timberland.5 |
 |
| Reasons to own WI forestland (1997) |
 |
In a survey of Wisconsin NIPF owners, recreation and
aesthetic enjoyment were the primary benefits that 68 percent of
owners received in the last ten years (1987 � 1997) from owning
timberland. Land value increase was the primary benefit for six
percent of owners and three percent indicated that timber income was
the primary benefit received from owning timberland. Other benefits
include wildlife habitat, pride of ownership, soil conservation,
scenic beauty, watershed protection, personal enjoyment, forest
products, and education. In the future, Wisconsin forestland owners
expect benefits of owning timberland to be similar to those they
presently receive.4 |
A recent study of the reasons for forestland purchases made in
Vilas and Oneida Counties exemplifies the trends in forestland
ownership. Scenic enjoyment ranked first followed by wildlife
habitat. Previously people purchased land primarily for the wildlife
habitat and the resulting hunting opportunities. The study also
determined that these counties have a higher concentration of people
65 and older than any other county, and that the land purchases are
primarily for second homes. In addition, two thirds of forestland
owners surveyed have never removed timber from the property,
indicating that the land was purchased as a luxury item and not for
the profit that could be generated by timber sales.6
Vilas and Oneida Counties concur with the national trend of rapidly
increasing number of people owning forestland, larger acreages being
divided into smaller ones, decrease in corporate ownerships, and
increase in retired forestland owners. These factors combine to
create difficulty in providing information to forest owners and
keeping parcels forested due to high turnover and smaller parcels.7 |
| |
|
What do these trends in ownership mean for
individual municipalities considering or in the process of
planning?
One concept is that since more people are purchasing forested lands,
private forestry assistance is needed.
Many of these newly created parcels will be large enough to need
forest management, but too small for the owners to be identified by
conventional outreach methods. These owners likely will not give
steady attention to their land. The newer forestland owners and
their land are most likely to be outside the �forestry community�,
largely unaffected and undetected by forestry programs as they
operate today.7
These new landowners will likely not have the same forest management
goals as prior owners, which means the chances for management and
protection of the forest and its resources as a whole decrease.8
Another expected outcome of these trends is
less land available for public use.
Individual communities will need to decide
together how they will deal with the trend of more owners, smaller
parcels and less active management of forestlands. Keeping
thousands of individual properties forested is a daunting task.9
By knowing the local trends of ownership, your community can make
informed decisions on how ownership will be allowed to affect the
landscape. See the Goals section for ideas. |
|
|
|
| some images on this page used with permission from
ArtbyCheryl |
| Sources |
[1] Wisconsin Governor�s Forestry Council. Wisconsin Forests:
Questions and
Answers. 2000. (pamphlet)
[2] Prichard, Teague. Personal Communication. 12/15/03
[3] Fantle, Will.
2003 November 20th.
For Sale! The ownership of Wisconsin's northwoods is rapidly
changing hands. Wisconsin Stewardship Network. <http://www.wsn.org/issues/Forest1.html>
Accessed 2/04/04.
[4]
Leatherberry, Earl. Wisconsin Private Timberland Owners:
1997. North Central Research
Station. Forest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture. Research Paper NC-339. 1997
back to demographics
[5] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources [WDNR]. Wisconsin
Forests at the Millenium:
An Assessment. Madison, WI: WDNR - Division of
Forestry. 2000 November. Available
from: WDNR, Madison, WI; PUB-FR-161.
[6] Klase W, Guries,
R. Land Ownership in Vilas and Oneida Counties, Wisconsin, 1975-1994.
Land
Tenure Center Working Paper 1999; 26.
[7] Sampson N, DeCoster L. Public
Programs for Private Forestry. 2000.
[8]
Meehan, Megan. Using Land, Changing Land � Land Use
Issues in the Northwoods. Northbound.
Vol 22 number 4. Winter
2003. p3
[9]
Wolff, Alexis. 2002: Volume 6, Issue 3 1000- friends of
WI Newsletter Why Smart Growth Is Good
For Wisconsin's Forests
|
|
Download