|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 8, 2017 15:04:48 GMT -6
This totally explains why the lands in the La Crosse Metro Unit that were MFL Open were switched to MFL Closed. The Open properties were surrounded by MFL Closed, so they were not accessible under the old rules if the surrounding property was in the Closed program. Dirty dog had a 100' wide strip of non-MFL around 27 acres of prime conifer bedding that was Open, but the old rules protected him in that situation, it appears the new rules do not. Now he would be forced to let you cross the Closed to access the Open portion, which is why he now changed it to Closed and it is no longer shown on the map of Open properties.
Access: Act 358 requires land designated as MFL open (to public recreation) to be accessible to the public on foot by public road or from other land open to public access. Other lands open to the public may include: public land (state, county, federal), open MFL, FCL land and/or land accessible by easement. This applies to all current and future entries. Land designated as MFL closed is not subject to the access requirement. Land surrounded entirely by MFL closed or non‐MFL lands owned by the same owner are eligible to be designated as MFL open because s. NR 46.20(2), Wis. Adm. Code. indicates that the public has the right to cross those lands to access the open land. MFL Lands surrounded by land not owned by that owner but which are accessible to the public by an easement or by other means may be eligible to be designated as MFL open. The access to the open land must be signed according to s. NR 46.21(c), Wis. Adm. Code if the access is through MFL closed land, non‐MFL land and/or by easement.
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on Feb 8, 2017 15:09:13 GMT -6
This totally explains why the lands in the La Crosse Metro Unit that were MFL Open were switched to MFL Closed. The Open properties were surrounded by MFL Closed, so they were not accessible under the old rules if the surrounding property was in the Closed program. Dirty dog had a 100' wide strip of non-MFL around 27 acres of prime conifer bedding that was Open, but the old rules protected him in that situation, it appears the new rules do not. Now he would be forced to let you cross the Closed to access the Open portion, which is why he now changed it to Closed and it is no longer shown on the map of Open properties. Access: Act 358 requires land designated as MFL open (to public recreation) to be accessible to the public on foot by public road or from other land open to public access. Other lands open to the public may include: public land (state, county, federal), open MFL, FCL land and/or land accessible by easement. This applies to all current and future entries. Land designated as MFL closed is not subject to the access requirement. Land surrounded entirely by MFL closed or non‐MFL lands owned by the same owner are eligible to be designated as MFL open because s. NR 46.20(2), Wis. Adm. Code. indicates that the public has the right to cross those lands to access the open land. MFL Lands surrounded by land not owned by that owner but which are accessible to the public by an easement or by other means may be eligible to be designated as MFL open. The access to the open land must be signed according to s. NR 46.21(c), Wis. Adm. Code if the access is through MFL closed land, non‐MFL land and/or by easement.
Dale,
It was always where if it was the same owner they had to allow you to access landlocked open MFL land even if the access was through the close MFL. But they only had to provide one access and they could make it anywhere they wanted which they typically made it the hardest possible on purpose to try and keep people out. That has not changed.
Where shit got dicey is where they would put the close land in a different name than the open land even if it was the same family or such. Then they would not have to because it wasn't technically the same owner.
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 8, 2017 15:15:58 GMT -6
This totally explains why the lands in the La Crosse Metro Unit that were MFL Open were switched to MFL Closed. The Open properties were surrounded by MFL Closed, so they were not accessible under the old rules if the surrounding property was in the Closed program. Dirty dog had a 100' wide strip of non-MFL around 27 acres of prime conifer bedding that was Open, but the old rules protected him in that situation, it appears the new rules do not. Now he would be forced to let you cross the Closed to access the Open portion, which is why he now changed it to Closed and it is no longer shown on the map of Open properties. Access: Act 358 requires land designated as MFL open (to public recreation) to be accessible to the public on foot by public road or from other land open to public access. Other lands open to the public may include: public land (state, county, federal), open MFL, FCL land and/or land accessible by easement. This applies to all current and future entries. Land designated as MFL closed is not subject to the access requirement. Land surrounded entirely by MFL closed or non‐MFL lands owned by the same owner are eligible to be designated as MFL open because s. NR 46.20(2), Wis. Adm. Code. indicates that the public has the right to cross those lands to access the open land. MFL Lands surrounded by land not owned by that owner but which are accessible to the public by an easement or by other means may be eligible to be designated as MFL open. The access to the open land must be signed according to s. NR 46.21(c), Wis. Adm. Code if the access is through MFL closed land, non‐MFL land and/or by easement.
Dale,
It was always where if it was the same owner they had to allow you to access landlocked open MFL land even if the access was through the close MFL. But they only had to provide one access and they could make it anywhere they wanted which they typically made it the hardest possible on purpose to try and keep people out. That has not changed.
Where shit got dicey is where they would put the close land in a different name than the open land even if it was the same family or such. Then they would not have to because it wasn't technically the same owner.
Yeah, you are right, I knew I wrote that incorrectly, the shit by the road was in his wife's name and Closed, so access was not allowed, but it doesn't appear they have to allow it now unless a signed easement is in effect? So IDK why they would have pulled it out of Open then? And I have run into your "provide one access point" thing as well in Vernon Co. Guy had a bunch of Open property and his access point was up a 600' vertical bluff face, seriously! Break out the repelling gear! No thanks! On a side note, the access to the bluff face was in a trout stream, yes IN the stream....
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on Feb 8, 2017 15:21:22 GMT -6
Dale,
It was always where if it was the same owner they had to allow you to access landlocked open MFL land even if the access was through the close MFL. But they only had to provide one access and they could make it anywhere they wanted which they typically made it the hardest possible on purpose to try and keep people out. That has not changed.
Where shit got dicey is where they would put the close land in a different name than the open land even if it was the same family or such. Then they would not have to because it wasn't technically the same owner.
Yeah, you are right, I knew I wrote that incorrectly, the shit by the road was in his wife's name and Closed, so access was not allowed, but it doesn't appear they have to allow it now unless a signed easement is in effect? So IDK why they would have pulled it out of Open then? And I have run into your "provide one access point" thing as well in Vernon Co. Guy had a bunch of Open property and his access point was up a 600' vertical bluff face, seriously! Break out the repelling gear! No thanks! On a side note, the access to the bluff face was in a trout stream, yes IN the stream....
Yep plenty of games can be played with the intent of the law.
It could be as simple as if two brothers own the land to have the open in ones name and the closed in the other and you don't have to provide access. Stuff like that.
|
|
|
Post by jbird on Feb 8, 2017 15:27:01 GMT -6
You guys got some interesting stuff going on. The closest thing I have down here is a "classified wild lands" program where they do the same thing....$1 an acre property taxes for the ground in the program and then the state creates/approves a management plan that you have to stick to. There are a few rules as far as size and cover type and the like, but it's the same intent. The big trick is it's still private land. Nobody down here is going to open their land up to the public.....ain't gonna happen! I don't even like the state having to approve my plan......they can bite me. I'll cut trees when I want to cut trees! My total property taxes isn't that bad any way. I pay on average $15/acre for mixed ag and wooded ground - not worth the headache!
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on Feb 8, 2017 15:32:36 GMT -6
You guys got some interesting stuff going on. The closest thing I have down here is a "classified wild lands" program where they do the same thing....$1 an acre property taxes for the ground in the program and then the state creates/approves a management plan that you have to stick to. There are a few rules as far as size and cover type and the like, but it's the same intent. The big trick is it's still private land. Nobody down here is going to open their land up to the public.....ain't gonna happen! I don't even like the state having to approve my plan......they can bite me. I'll cut trees when I want to cut trees! My total property taxes isn't that bad any way. I pay on average $15/acre for mixed ag and wooded ground - not worth the headache!
Taxes by me for non MFL land are around $50 / acre. So a 40 acre parcel is $2,000 per year. One other thing JBird is you don't have the big chunks of woods we have. This is for woods only. Not for open land. So if it is not land that can grow a merchantable timber you can't enroll your land. Correct me if I'm wrong having 20+ acres of continuous woods by you is rare?
|
|
|
Post by terrifictom on Feb 8, 2017 15:39:46 GMT -6
You guys got some interesting stuff going on. The closest thing I have down here is a "classified wild lands" program where they do the same thing....$1 an acre property taxes for the ground in the program and then the state creates/approves a management plan that you have to stick to. There are a few rules as far as size and cover type and the like, but it's the same intent. The big trick is it's still private land. Nobody down here is going to open their land up to the public.....ain't gonna happen! I don't even like the state having to approve my plan......they can bite me. I'll cut trees when I want to cut trees! My total property taxes isn't that bad any way. I pay on average $15/acre for mixed ag and wooded ground - not worth the headache!
Taxes by me for non MFL land are around $50 / acre. So a 40 acre parcel is $2,000 per year. One other thing JBird is you don't have the big chunks of woods we have. This is for woods only. Not for open land. So if it is not land that can grow a merchantable timber you can't enroll your land. Correct me if I'm wrong having 20+ acres of continuous woods by you is rare?
I don't have my land in any programs and my tax bill was $526 this year for my 40.
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on Feb 8, 2017 15:40:34 GMT -6
Taxes by me for non MFL land are around $50 / acre. So a 40 acre parcel is $2,000 per year. One other thing JBird is you don't have the big chunks of woods we have. This is for woods only. Not for open land. So if it is not land that can grow a merchantable timber you can't enroll your land. Correct me if I'm wrong having 20+ acres of continuous woods by you is rare?
I don't have my land in any programs and my tax bill was $526 this year for my 40.
And you suck. Bad.
|
|
|
Post by terrifictom on Feb 8, 2017 15:45:30 GMT -6
When they did the last assessment, they asked if I had any tillable land, told them yes and gave the acreages of tillable which matched up with what they had on record. They then asked if I rented the tillable out, I said no I plant it my self. Told them to check the aerial photos of land. They assessed me as ag and ag forest.
|
|
|
Post by terrifictom on Feb 8, 2017 15:47:10 GMT -6
When I 1st bought it, the taxes were only $276.00
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on Feb 8, 2017 15:48:03 GMT -6
And unlike no fo I will prove it. This is my tax bill for my front 40 where the cabin is. I will be putting this back into mfl. Can't afford it this way.
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on Feb 8, 2017 15:50:01 GMT -6
When they did the last assessment, they asked if I had any tillable land, told them yes and gave the acreages of tillable which matched up with what they had on record. They then asked if I rented the tillable out, I said no I plant it my self. Told them to check the aerial photos of land. They assessed me as ag and ag forest.
Ahhh there is a big difference. Everyone in ag gets tax breaks but the wooded land guys don't unless you are in MFL.
Another problem by us is we have so few of residents and houses that they have to make up the money in our town with vacant land taxes to pay for stuff.
|
|
|
Post by badbrad on Feb 8, 2017 15:51:36 GMT -6
What is funny about my taxes and everyone else in the area. There is no way anyone would pay $2,500 an acre in my area. No way. But that is what they asses and tax everyone at. I looked at all the other land's property taxes in the area and its all the same so I guess I can't bitch.
|
|
|
Post by MoBuckChaser on Feb 8, 2017 15:53:15 GMT -6
And unlike no fo I will prove it. This is my tax bill for my front 40 where the cabin is. I will be putting this back into mfl. Can't afford it this way. You pay $50/acre in property taxes? For woods?
|
|
|
Post by wiscwhip on Feb 8, 2017 15:54:21 GMT -6
I was going to ask you if you sold you place could you get the assessed value of $194,900.00?
|
|