Hearings could begin as soon as October 21st for a new bill that would provide extensive changes to the Managed Forest Law (MFL).
Representative Jeff Mursau announced to the Council on Forestry on September 30th that a bill is being drafted which is expected to include provisions that would:
- Eliminate the 5% yield tax landowners must pay on timber harvested.
- Direct all of the closed acreage fees to local governments. Currently these fees are transferred by local governments to the state where they are deposited in the state’s forestry account.
- Limit the early withdrawal penalty to a maximum of 10 years.
- Simplify sales of land enrolled in the MFL by allowing landowners to sell any part of a parcel of land, as opposed to entire parcels, as long as the remaining land meets the eligibility requirements for MFL designation.
- Allow additions of 3 or more acres of contiguous land to an existing MFL order.
- Allows withdrawal of lands that were damaged by natural disasters or is unsuitable for production of merchantable timber without penalty.
- Eliminates the 160 acre limitation on the ability to close lands within any one municipality.
A separate bill has been drafted which would specifically allow landowners to receive compensation for recreational use of MFL land they’ve enrolled as closed.
Stay tuned.
3 Responses to “Major Managed Forest Law Changes Could be on Fast Track”
Kristie Kasbohm
Thanks for your comments. Will try to offer more detail with links.
Jim Thompson
1. The yield tax within MFL should simply be eliminated because no other agricultural enterprise like corn or beef or hay has a yield tax tied to yields.
2. There should not be any closed or open options in timber production (forestry) anymore then there is for pasture, row crops or grasslands. Any lands in agriculture are not required to designate open or closed. These lands should be equal in there treatments. Traditional agricultural lands are as useful and desirable for public recreation as forest lands, yet traditional farmers can post there land as they see fit.
3. Again does agriculture have a penalty system in place?
4. I think lands in traditional agriculture do not have to deal with any of these rules.
5. Make it allowable to add what you like. What do you need a acreage amount for, you do not have that for other lands.
6. Again, what is this penalty for?? Many parcels of lands have ecologically valuable wetlands that do not or may not grow timber, but should qualify for tax relief regardless. Do away with diqualifying landowners with more then 20% non production.
7.Again, this rule should not exist, if timber lands (silviculture) were treated equally with other agricultural lands there would not be an open or closed option. Forestry should not required to open there lands anymore then traditional agriculture.
“Simplify” and make it profitable and equitable to grow these long term crops (trees).
It should not be any different whether the management is grass, row crops, pasture or timber production whether the owner wants to allow outdoor recreationists or not on these badly needed “green spaces” and rural visual charactors.
Jordan
I believe that the basis of the MFL program is to provide lower taxes to the land owner. If a landowner is going to save thousands of dollars in taxes over the period of having said property in the program, then yes there should be a yield tax. Just because you fill out an application the state is supposed to charge you less for taxes? There has to be some benefit for the state otherwise why wouldn’t everyone be in the program so they can pay cheaper taxes. And to compare woodland to agricultural land is foolish. Yes, maple trees are part of agriculture as is perhaps the harvest of any trees, but would it make sense that a farmer would have to allow the public to walk through his freshly planted corn or soybean field? Foot traffic in a wood lot causes no damage for one and two, this point of open vs. closed comes back to saving money on taxes. If you want to pay the absolute least in taxes, there’s a trade off that you allow the public recreational access. If you pay slightly more than minimum, but not full price then you retain the right to close your land.
In closing, I see nothing wrong with this program as it is. It has simple structure. You save money on taxes, the state gets something back, as does the public. Unfortunately this country doesn’t run without taxes.
-Jordan Gajewski- Builder, Logger, Farmer