Forest Certification on MFL lands

[markcasper]

Does anybody know anything about the following:http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/timbersales/mfl.html

We have transferred the woods from my parents to us, and the woods has been enrolled in the MFL program. One of the questions the DNR forester requested was whether we want it certified or not. He said if it is checked "yes" that it would remain the way it is now. He said in future years certified wood may be more valuable than uncertified, but the land owner is held to higher expectations and a possible audit by this group. Any info or experience that other could share would be helpful.

[Mark]

I was reading a bunch on the link you provided and it kind of looks like organic wood. Can you tap and be in the program?

[jmayerl]

I was reading a bunch on the link you provided and it kind of looks like organic wood. Can you tap and be in the program?
No. You are not able to tap for commercial use

[markcasper]

No. You are not able to tap for commercial use

Where does it say you can't tap trees commercially?? Evidence?? The forester did not say ANYTHING about not being able to tap. On the contrary, maple syrup production was written into the MFL management plan in 2001 when the woods went in. I think you are full of it jmayerl!!

[buckeye gold]

Right out of the manual :

non-Timber products
Aromatics, berries and wild fruits, cones and seeds,
forest botanicals, honey, mushrooms, nuts, syrup, and
weaving and dyeing materials are some of the many
alternative forest products that people grow and
harvest. Special products like these can provide
opportunities for entrepreneurs to supplement their
incomes. The broader economic framework that
results can ultimately help to pr

So it looks looks tapping is fine: I'm in Ohio but my family has managed certified tree farms for decades and have tapped those lands for years

[Sunny's Sugar Shack]

Where does it say you can't tap trees commercially?? Evidence?? The forester did not say ANYTHING about not being able to tap. On the contrary, maple syrup production was written into the MFL management plan in 2001 when the woods went in. I think you are full of it jmayerl!!

We just purchased a 40 that is in MFL. I called the DNR before offering on the property. His reply was maple syrup production is no problem as long as it doesn't interfere with timber harvest. He also said while in the program you cannot profit from any forest products produced from the land. As I never seem to make any money from this venture I am not to worried about it. I do think if you had 3500 taps on a tubing system...They would have some questions.

[markcasper]

We just purchased a 40 that is in MFL. I called the DNR before offering on the property. His reply was maple syrup production is no problem as long as it doesn't interfere with timber harvest. He also said while in the program you cannot profit from any forest products produced from the land. As I never seem to make any money from this venture I am not to worried about it. I do think if you had 3500 taps on a tubing system...They would have some questions.

I got a response from our local DNR forester and he said it is OK to tap trees on lands that are in the MFL, certified or not. As for making a profit, I asked that question and will forward the response when I receive one.

[buckeye gold]

wow I am not familiar with your program in WI., but I find it amazing anyone would sign up for a program that prohibited you from making money off your land. Like I said my family has been involved with certified tree farming for decades and the main objective was managing a sustained crop for income.... This sounds like a group of environmental preservationist we have in our area that are just a bunch of anti-everything and have tied up a lot of land that you can't even cut a twig on. I wouldn't touch a program like that at all.

[jmayerl]

Where does it say you can't tap trees commercially?? Evidence?? The forester did not say ANYTHING about not being able to tap. On the contrary, maple syrup production was written into the MFL management plan in 2001 when the woods went in. I think you are full of it jmayerl!!
When I told the forester that I was planning on a 3800 tap system he said they would not do the parcel as MFL. His main reasoning was the butt log would be useless to a logger. I then gave him a example of a nearby woods with some buckets in it and he said that was for personal use.

[buckeye gold]

From what I have read in the info and everyone's replies I think what is causing the confusion is the objective of this MFL plan. The foresters are only managing for optimum timber harvest on a long term plan and everything else is considered a side venture or supplemental benefit. If they were to look at the management plan as a business or income producer, then they would be looking at all possible scenarios. However, they are operating this strictly as a timber harvest plan. A lot of factors are in play when you look at total timber stand management. You have to ask the question, "what do I want my woods to do for me and where is the value". Then your woods needs to be inventoried and evaluated for assets. Here is where the syrup operation parameters are considered. If you have an established old (near climax) forest that has never been tapped then the timber value is substantially more than syrup value. However, in this scenario damage will not be total as most of the sawable wood is already made and you will only be tapping a small part of it. The value of the logs will be impacted some, but not severely. If you have a young woods that is still somewhat successional than that is a different case. If you are going to be tapping young trees of say 10-14" and doing so long term, then the timber value will be impacted more severely. So you come to this point where you decide what you want and where is the value. There has been research done that shows this comparison. If you start on young trees and tap them long term over decades then your syrup value will be pretty much equal to what timber value you would have gained. On old mature trees you may want to harvest the best trees as timber to maximize value. So I gather this MFL plan you all are discussing is geared strictly towards maximizing timber value. If that is the case then I would say a syrup producer should not enter into it. You can successfully manage for both, I have. We sold our home farm we tapped for years to some friends that happen to be log buyer/ brokers. He cut and sold most of the Maples we had tapped for years. I asked him if that ruined the logs and he said it reduced the grade a little, but they still sold very well. The case was most of these trees were already mature and of harvest size when they were first tapped, so the value was not greatly impacted. If you can find the market tapped lumber will bring a premium.

[markcasper]

While my county forester has yet to respond, I looked up the rule book here:http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/forestmanagement/documents/24505.pdf

You can scroll down to the bottom of page 20-24 and find that maple tapping is indeed allowed and MFL lands can be rented out for tapping. The disclaimer part is that if the practice is "incompatible with forestry" it can apparently be denied. It is no secret that many foresters, DNR or not do not like maple tappers. So with that being said, and with the stories that I have read here, it certainly seems that it is at the discretion of who the particular forester is.

I know of several large and prominent producers that have their lands enrolled in the MFL, so hearing all of this is very troubling and confusing.

Almost seems as if the state is picking and choosing who can tap, and who cannot. It kind of resembles how the Wi food safety inspectors inspect sugar house. None of them are consistent with one another, one guy gets nailed on a "violation", while the guy 4 miles down the road gets a free pass even though hes in "violation" of the same item. (Ask me how I know this.) Typical outcome when government gets too top heavy!

[BAP]

I’m glad I live in the state of New Hampshire also known as the “Live Free or Die” state. Our Current Use laws don’t have any of these use restrictions.

[markcasper]

Here is the response from my forester:
M
Molback, Matthew S - DNR <Matthew.Molback@wisconsin.gov>






Reply|
Today, 1:35 PM
You
Mark,



I’ve never heard of such a thing. I know of many MFL landowners that have profited from their maple syrup operations on MFL lands. Where it could be an issue with MFL is if the landowner is not completing their mandatory harvest obligations of the program because of their tapping operation. This could be deemed a use incompatible with the practice of forestry. In most cases working with your DNR forester to try and coincide the timber harvest with changing of the lines is a good approach.



Let me know if you have any further questions or concerns, 715-232-1516.



-Matt



We are committed to service excellence.

Visit our survey at http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey to evaluate how I did.



Matthew S. Molback

Phone: 715-232-1516

matthew.molback@wisconsin.gov

jmayerl..you should probably report your forester to the state, he may get a new outlook on life.

[Louie]

"Mandatory harvest obligations of the program" What do you get in exchange for that obligation? I guess it is the government helping you meet your goals.

[markcasper]

"Mandatory harvest obligations of the program" What do you get in exchange for that obligation? I guess it is the government helping you meet your goals.

In exchange you pay very little property tax, .79 cents per acre each year.

[jmayerl]

In exchange you pay very little property tax, .79 cents per acre each year.
This rate is only if you had the property entered before 2005 and your land is completely open to the public for use. The current rate to enter Jan 1, 2018 and keep your land private is $10.20 per acre.

[markcasper]

This rate is only if you had the property entered before 2005 and your land is completely open to the public for use. The current rate to enter Jan 1, 2018 and keep your land private is $10.20 per acre.

Yes....you are correct on that! We enrolled ours in 2001 b/c it was getting taxed as recreational, the state did not yet recognize tapping as agricultural, which under "use value" assessment, lowers the taxes dramatically. Roland Jorns from Door County created alot of smoke in Madison regarding this issue. If it were not for him, it may still be taxed as recreational.