On Nov 1, the Assembly Forestry Committee will take public testimony on AB342.
The Legislative Reference Bureau summarizes the bill as follows:
This is an old press release (August), but one I had trouble finding initially. Luckily, the DNR posted it as part of their Wisconsin Forestry Notes, distributed by e-mail. (See here for subscription information.)
I've looked on AF&PA's website for the report with the data, but have not found it.
The current version of the MFL changes moving through the legislature (SB161) would both (1) increase the amount landowner would pay to close land under the MFL and (2) shift which government units ultimately receive those closed area fees.
The MFL changes are finally hitting the mainstream media. This article appeared in the State Journal over the weekend. [Note: The Legislative Council Study has entered the Senate as SB161.]
Proposed legislative changes to the MFL: Implications for current, new, and renewing landowners A recently completed Legislative Council Special Committee has recommended seven changes to the Managed Forest Law. This Forestry Fact (#108) reviews those changes with a focus on their potential implications for woodland owners.
Last week, Ms. Kelly Crosset successfully defended her MS thesis entitled, Landowner Perspectives on Invasive Species Management and Neighbors in Southwest Wisconsin. The abstract is below, and we will be working on developing a paper based on her work, which is quite interesting.
If you'd like to learn more about this study, let me know.
The proposed changes* to the Managed Forest Law (MFL), if passed as is (unlikely), would offer landowners new tools, higher taxes for new participants, and greater flexibility. Below I describe the likely effects for both existing and new/renewing participants of the proposed changes.
PLEASE RECALL THAT THESE HAVE YET TO PASS--just felt I needed to say that.
Sustainable bioenergy derived from cellulosic biomass offers the potential to create new market and diversification opportunities for Wisconsin farmers, woodland owners, and their local communities. However, achieving sustainable biomass supply within Wisconsin’s mixed-use landscapes that include both agriculture and forest systems will require some degree of coordination across their strikingly different and traditionally isolated stakeholder networks.