WARNING - ALL ILLINOIS WOODLOT OWNERS- URGENT

[Ron Wenrich]

Checks and balances?  You've got to be kidding.  I have tried to establish both a landowner's association in one of the counties, and tried a co-op.  The co-op was submarined by the consultants.  They provide all the services, and there is no need for landowners to actually get involved with the marketing of forest products, or so the arguement goes.  As for the association, it was hard to get much support from anyone but a few retired guys who wanted to putter around their woodlots. 

Our state has pretty well stepped away from the private sector.  Its been handed over to consultants and loggers.  SFI has gone the route to "managing" forests through a stewardship program that has no checks or balances.  Same goes for consultants.  We have no licensing, and no one to check up on them.  Not all are good ones. 

I like the idea of a co-op, but the problem we have is the short tenure of land ownership.  A guy buys land one year, and sells it just a few years later. 

We do have a state forestry association, but it has fallen on hard times due to lack of support from either the industry, landowners or the government.  They offer a lot of information on forestry, but very little on the ground support. 

[Goose79]

This money is suppose to come from a 4% tax on timber harvests, but as Kirk stated the state government has basically stolen this money.   

Is the 4% above and beyond the income tax? And is the timber tax set up as a forest management fund?

Yes, when there is a timber harvest in the state of Illinois, there is a 4% tax, this money goes into a management fund, and the landowner still has to pay the income tax on the sale.

The state forestry program is set up as a public act, so they just passed legislation allowing them access to this money for other uses.  I think this past year they took around $900,000 from the fund, but don't quote me on the exact amount.

As far as checks and balances go, this is not much, but when cost-share is approved and the practice is completed the district foresters are responsible for inspecting the work.  The same goes for management plans, the consultant can write a plan, but the district forester still must approve it.  Does this mean that the district forester goes out to the site of each and every managment plan written, no, but at least it is being reviewed and he can question the consultant.

Ron, land ownership changes often in my area, but heck, when they are paying $8,000 an acre for timber ground, why not sell.

Goose

[SwampDonkey]

By checks and balances I mean we have the Association staff who review management plans before the landowner receives it. In our silviculture program both the Association staff (100 %) and Government (20 %) monitors each treatment. We treat about 2500 ha (6175 acres) of thinning and tree planting, which is about 10 % of the provincial budget. There are 6 other Regions and we are all looked after by the Federation of Woodlot Owners who are a small staff where funding is based on owners and acres of forest. One of the most disturbing thing I found is that the majority of management plans are never followed, so no subsidy would be issued. There are two skidders up the road working on 10 acres of hardwood that will only be flattened. In most cases when the landowner is presented with cash from the logger, the plan gets shelfed. Some loggers are foresters and forest technicians, most aren't but they are usually professional loggers trying to make a living.
We needed a Marketing Board and an Association desparately here because the industry treated the private landowners as prostitutes and private wood was competing with cheaper crown wood.  When the boards first formed the prices increased. Regions that were not close to the market in the US got the least for thier wood.  Excluding freehold (industry forestry), the most frequent exchange of private land with woodlots we have is under farm sales (including amalgamations) or inheritance (the family farm gets subdivided among siblings). 

Ron you've run into the same problem as most Woodlot Associations, there are many woodlot owners but few participants. I'm sure there are parts of PA as in VA, that people hardly ever cut wood or sell stumpage. Around Blacksburgh and Christiansburgh all I seen was heat pumps, no wood processing facilites (sawmills/pulp). We have about 35,000 woodlot owners in NB, but only about 10 % rely on the forest for there sole income, or a significant portion there of. You need to get a good number of people who work their ground for a living in order to organize an Association that will be beneficial. If you work your ground for a living your going to talk alot louder than the weekend logger. Our Board of directors are usually the same old group that were around 25 years ago. If we didn't have food and prizes at the annual meetings there would be few show up. I know one guy on the board that probably owns 800 acres of woods, his father used to cut wood, but he hardly cuts enough to keep warm. Most of the harvesting was done by logging contractors,since he's owned it. I had a 23 year old photo of one portion of his woods where his father used to cut wood in the 60-70's and it showed all his father's trails. The photo was taken in '82 and those old trails still showed up, no new ones. :D His main problem is that he's a lazy old fart. :D The wife made him go to the woods this fall to pay for farm bills they still owe since he gave up farming, and she's on teacher's pension. It's pretty pathetic. His son was so fed up he went to Vancouver Island to work for a farmer. Shrug

[Tom]

In defense, I guess, this industry seems to think of landowners of small tree farms as itinerant, superficial obstacles.

There really are many land owners who care.   Some will take the bull by the horns and learn forestry themselves.  They can "get it done" but not efficiently because they don't have the backing or knowledge of the industry.

Some don't know what to do and are so involved n making a living elsewhere that their tree farm takes a back seat.

When one thinks of the tree farming population and its involvement in the "society", one should also think of a hierarchy of management.  While there have been many efforts at getting everyone together to walk the same path, most of these "organizations" fall to the wayside because of lack of interest due to the eventual ignoring of the one person who is responsible for making it happen, the land owner.

When the State and County here wanted to make a good showing in the Agricultural field, you would see all kinds of "help" offered.  There would be meetings, classes, education on trees, insects, farm ponds, fire.....  you name it.

When the Urban citizens complain about smoke, burning woods, harvesting, log trucks, Arborists, loggers, mono-cultures and all those "environmentalist" terms, the people in the know back off.  The State Foresters disappear, The county Foresters disappear, money for the creation of Tree-Growing occupations disappears.

The classes that interested tree farmers once attended down the road, for free or for the price of a meal now cost 300 or 500 dollars and are held in some big hotel 200 miles away. (close to an institute of higher learning usually-God forbid that a professor had to travel)

Does the "industry" think I'm going to stop what I'm doing for 3 days or more, pay $500 to be away from my money-making business to listen to some school teacher ramble about the Lignin in Pine?  I don't think so.

What is the goal?   From the land-owners perspective, it is survival.  From the Industries perspective it should be "supply".   Now what follows is pure opinion.

If the State, County, pulp-mill or sawmill wants to involve the land-owner in education, to benefit the State, County or pulp industry, then the education should be offered at no more than cost and favorably, for free.  Let the organizations that need the land-owner provide the service.

I don't think you can treat land-owners like chattel with good results.  If the industry organizes the land-owners into a viable entity, it can't just stop and expect the organization to obediently run itself.  It will disband.  Goals will change and members will go their own way.

Contrary to popular belief, land-owners aren't chomping at the bit to enter Universities and spend educational loans on growing trees.   The society, if you can call it that, is more like a Little League organization with a town full of boys wanting to play baseball.  Either you keep them busy and constantly educated or they play sand-lot by their own rules or quit playing all together.

There is a place for  tax paid Foresters offering education and services for "free" to land-owners, especially small land-owners.  It just depends on who's goals need to be met.   Does the Government want people to grow trees?  Then it should provide the guidance or butt-out.

[SwampDonkey]

I extracted this part from your post for comment, but I also agree with you on most of your other points.

The classes that interested tree farmers once attended down the road, for free or for the price of a meal now cost 300 or 500 dollars and are held in some big hotel 200 miles away. (close to an institute of higher learning usually-God forbid that a professor had to travel)

Does the "industry" think I'm going to stop what I'm doing for 3 days or more, pay $500 to be away from my money-making business to listen to some school teacher ramble about the Lignin in Pine?  I don't think so.

I've seen that here also. Thank goodness our Board does put on courses at their office or local halls for free to the woodlot owner. Although, at times the advertising for them is a little shottie. But, it doesn't involve someone talking over the audiences head, they are asked to be down to earth for a general audience.

When I see seminars/info sessions near Universities, the audience are generaly employees of industry and government who pay them to sit there, plus pay the cost of the seminar/info session. Take it from me, very little knowledge  is gained, it's just a day taken to get away from the office and rub shoulders with colleges. ;D I attended one seminar that was free and they had a few folks like myself from outside the 'circle', so the next year they charged $250. And as you say Tom, no one with their own business is going to take a day off where he has to both give up his daily wage and pay out an equivelent to 2 or 3 days pay to see some professor type talk over his head all day about some instrument he setup on top of a tower to measure CO2 sequestration. :D  (breather here :D) What bothers me most about it is that fact they receive government grants (my tax dollars) for projects and the general public has to pay to attend the seminars and info sessions.  >:(

As a final note, I know what it was like before woodlot owners organized, and even if their is low attendance to our efforts sometimes, absolutely know one with strong ties to their woodlots ever wants to go back whether they cut wood for a living or only on occassion. ;)

[Tom]

While sometimes I feel a Little ire and run-on , getting more out of hand with every typed word,  It does feel good to know that there are others in the "chain" who have experienced what I describe, whether agreeing or not.   

These "seminars" are being advertised to the land-owners now with brochures and sign-up sheets being mailed to us under the auspices of programs supported, if not run, by the State.  That makes them look pretty official and the charges are a confusing item.

Those of us with enough time in the field, as land-owners, can remember a county forester visiting on occasion to see how we were fairing and if we needed any help or advice.  It usually got him a cup of coffee ......  or maybe dinner.

[SwampDonkey]

Yes, when there is a timber harvest in the state of Illinois, there is a 4% tax, this money goes into a management fund, and the landowner still has to pay the income tax on the sale.

Our local Forest Products Marketing Board and Association coexist. One does the marketing and the other does the education and on the ground work. We have a 2.2 % levey on all private wood sales in our two counties. 1.7 % goes to paying wages and running the infrastructure of the marketing board. These folks have some good paying jobs and well deserved. I've worked there for years. The remaining 0.5 % goes into a forest managment fund. Some mills top this fund up. The key here is that the majority of wood from private woodlots goes through the Board. If not, the whole thing would collapse over night. We have 12 board of directors elected by delegates from each parish. There is also a forest products commission with members from government, industry and private woodlot sector. Their role is to 'police' the marketing board system. The volume of sales that pass through our local board (there are 6 others) ranges from $10-15 million per year. I've seen this Board take losses in the $200,000-$300,000 range from defunct mills over the last 10 years. They still beat on.  8)

Was just thinking that Kirk, and others among us, may find this info useful.

cheers

[Tome]

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

[eagles nest]

what is youalls thoughts on the state's tree farm program
i joined & a state forester came out developed a 5 year plan on 7 stands covering about 50 acres no charge.
i just got back from the mo. tree farm conferance didnt see any of you there why is that?

[crtreedude]

Tome,

That quote is one of my favorites. What I would love is if all Democracies would pass a law requiring that it was printed in bold letter above all polling booths. Perhaps people would think before they pulled the lever...

When you vote, you aren't voting your pocketbook - you are voting for the survival of Democracy.

[Kevin_H.]

A resolution was passed last week to address woodland assessments in illinois.

The resolution urges the department of revenue to enact a 2 year moratorium on assessment changes and create a task force to make recommendations for needed changes to the Illinois property tax laws.

From what I understand the illinois dept of rev. has issued a letter to all assessors in the state saying that the department will accept the old woodland assesment for the next 2 years.

On the flip side the resolution is not binding and if the county assessor wants to value your woodland at the new rate thay still can.

[Goose79]

I assume that you are talking about House Bill 4175,  I know they amended it to include the 06 and 07 tax year, but as far as I know it is only on second reading.  I do not think it has come to a full vote yet.

Please let me know if I am wrong.

Goose

[Kevin_H.]

It looks like HJR 0095

Creates the Wooded Land Assessment Task Force concerning the assessment of wooded land and property under forestry management programs. Urges the Department of Revenue to accept the reduced valuation of certain wooded land for the 2006 and 2007 taxable years.

The last action was on 2-23

HB4175

Amends the Property Tax Code. Provides that, beginning with the 2005 assessment year, qualified timberland shall be assessed at 33 1/3% of the lesser of: (i) its value; or (ii) $500 per acre. Defines "qualified timberland" as any parcel of unimproved real property that is timberland and that: (1) does not qualify as cropland, permanent pasture, other farmland, or wasteland; and (2) is not managed under a forestry management plan so as to be considered as "other farmland". Effective immediately.

house amendment to HB4175

Deletes everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Property Tax Code. Provides that if, during the 2005 taxable year, certain wooded land was valued based upon its productivity index equalized assessed value as cropland, then the Department of Revenue must accept any similar valuation of that wooded land for the 2006 and 2007 taxable years. Effective immediately.

Goose you are right it looks like it is in it's second reading.

I guess in the mean time the non binding resolution asks the county assessors not to assess at the higher rate set forth by bullitin 810

[SwampDonkey]

  If forestry companies had to pay $500/acre  taxes they'de be bankrupt. My woodlot is only taxed at $27.00. But, if your land is 10 acres or less it's taxed as commercial or developed land. I know one old guy that has a couple lots like that and has been trying to get it assessed at woodland, they won't budge.

[Goose79]

Thanks for the info on HJR 0095, I had not found that one yet.  There are also a couple other bills HB 4416 & 4289.

HB 4416, states that the assessment for 2004 must be used for 2005 and after for woodland.  This bill has not moved out of rules since January.

HB4289, is the same as 4175, it will also be amended to remove the $500 an acre, and just give a grace period for a few years.

The $500 is really not that bad when they could be using the current property value.  I saw a 130 acre tract of timber sell in my area for $7800 an acre.  I would gladly take the assessed value of $500 an acre.

I think the most that will happen is landowners will get a year or two to prepare for higher taxes.  I really would like to see a lower rate, instead of using the 33 1/3. 

The assessor in my county stated that "woodland has been taxed cheap for to long.  The price per acre is on average $3000 plus, and people are making money off of hunting leases", so he says.

As for the counties near me:

Madison County has been in the process of updating assessments for the last four or so years.

Macoupin County, the assessor is foaming at the mouth to start reassessing all the timber in the county.

Montgomery County, they actually did not know much about the new assessment and were doing some more research to decide how to handle the tax.

Bond, the assessor said he was not going to be that aggressive, I doubt that.

That is all who I have talked with about the tax.

Goose

[Ron Wenrich]

Swamp

I believe that's the assessed rate, not the taxes. 

[SwampDonkey]

Now that I think about it Ron, that makes sence. Here they call 'Levy' the tax, probably the same down there. They have my woodlot total assessment at $1600. Wish I could buy a hundred acres for that. The government has a 100 acre parcel of land they are selling with mature timber. Their assessment is $170,000. No one around here, including the better off loggers (if there is such a thing) could afford that.  :

[Kevin_H.]

I too believe that there is no way of stopping it, hopefully the extra 2 years will allow more land owners get into a foresty mgnt program.

[wesdor]

Maybe I should keep my mouth shut, since this is pretty new stuff for me.  However, in the hopes of somebody setting me straight if I have this wrong, I'll add my two cents.

My understanding is that timber land enrolled in the forestry program is assessed at 1/6 of farm ground.  Also, it must be at least a 10 year commitment from the land owner. 

The problem around here (western Illinois) and I think statewide, is that the governor has cut back on the forestry department to such an extent that nobody can get a forestor to sign them up.

There are rumors that we might be able to accomplish an enrollment, but to date I haven't seen anyone actually get signed on.  I've been led to believe some form of Forestry sign-up may happen in March, but that is as yet unscheduled.

If a sign up actually occurs, I'll be happy to share that information with everyone here.

[Kirk_Allen]

The Govenor has depleted the funds from DNR since he took office.  Our local forester does not have gas to even inspect timber and because of cut backs he is supposed to take care of 9 counties.

We have a retired Forester that is doing management plans and getting timber entered into the forester program to circumvent the tax issue. 

Was told today that our Gov. plans on wiping out the Conservation Police because the State Police can do that job :( >:(  One of the Officers south of us was let go today. 

I know Cumberland county chose to IGNORE the requested hold on implementing the new tax change.  Talked with landowners who are now getting popped for $50 acre for timber.  Some of them have 100-200 acres.

For anyone in Illinois you had best push real hard to ensure this Jerk we have as Govener does not get realected.  He braggs about not raising income tax but behind the scenes he does this kind of crap.  Folks in Chicago dont care because they dont have grass let alone timber and all the money he can grap goes straight north to the windy city.

[wesdor]

Kirk,
We've talked about this before, but I'm really afraid this guy is going to be re-elected.  Now that is just about as bad a thing as I can imagine for our state.   

I'm still waiting on the details of what I PM'd you about.  So far I've seen some sample plans, and have had some promises, but nothing has come to reality. 


I sure hope the citizens of our state wake up soon.

[SwampDonkey]

You guys are running into the same thing we have up here for years. The additude is: 'If it doesn't effect my situation, I don't care'. And you farmer and woodlot owners are a small voice compared to the rest of the populous.

Something came up today. And this is going off topic here, but oh well.  :
There was someone in the news, I don't know the details, who made a statement today that on farms one spouse has to work off the farm to keep things going. My mother heard this jerk and reminded me that they (farmers and spouses) have been telling these jerks this for at least 40 years already.  : I've met with many farmers over the years to crusie their woods or do plans and in alot of cases (not most) their wife is a teacher or a nurse. Some farmers who are part timers, have a government job, usually an agriculture agency or teach highschool. I know 12 of these guys off the top of my head. One farm the husband and wife are both veternarians. One farm the husband worked on another farm on a salary while his wife run the dairy farm. That farm he worked on is a large corporation.

[crtreedude]

Unfortunately the rules rarely are structured for the farmers or the small lot owner - Too often the government on one side of it's mouth will talk about the environment and preserving family values and on the otherside, destroy them.

Perhaps the best solution is to just let the press into - lots and lots of articles for the papers. Sometimes it helps.

[olyman]

oh to have a armed rebellion against all elected govenment officials----cause me thinks theres something perverse all across the usa happening in the general elections--my town being one example---

[beenthere]

Getting involved in the system is a smarter way to go, IMO. Otherwise we are no different than those who have no regard for their system.
The system we have can work. There are parts of it that are frustrating at times. No other country is better, IMO. If it was better, we could just move there.