https://knowlesnelson.org/#/15/

I got the link from an RGS e-mail, wasn't sure everyone would have seen it.

A follow up phone call is on my schedule for Monday.

Further North wrote on May 7^th, 2021 at 6:28pm:

https://knowlesnelson.org/#/15/ I got the link from an RGS e-mail, wasn't sure everyone would have seen it. A follow up phone call is on my schedule for Monday.

I know Trout Unlimited is working on it too (not me - I don't understand how anyone talks to politicians but I am glad there are folks that do...).

One thing I do know, the form letters are OK if they come in, in massive numbers but they are more likely to take note if you write you own letter. And in general, phone call > mailed letter > e-mail > e-mail form letter. Of course, bags of money >>>>>>>>> any of those communication methods    :(

I don't have bags of money, so I have to settle for the call-in.

Working on it a lot. 

We are worried that, despite the program being overwhelmingly popular, we might see only a proposed 2 year renewal with limited funding.

If you can take a minute and call your representatives (given who is driving the ship in Wisconsin currently contacting republicans makes the most sense) and ask them to re-authorize the program on a long term basis (i.e. 8 to 10 years) and with sufficient funding, it would help the cause.

In person is the best (but that's not happening right now given shutdowns, etc.) calls are the next best - then letters, then e-mails. 

We're in the final weeks of this, and we really need everyone on board if they can be.  Please help. 

HEK wrote on May 28^th, 2021 at 2:45pm:

Working on it a lot.  We are worried that, despite the program being overwhelmingly popular, we might see only a proposed 2 year renewal with limited funding. If you can take a minute and call your representatives (given who is driving the ship in Wisconsin currently contacting republicans makes the most sense) and ask them to re-authorize the program on a long term basis (i.e. 8 to 10 years) and with sufficient funding, it would help the cause. In person is the best (but that's not happening right now given shutdowns, etc.) calls are the next best - then letters, then e-mails.  We're in the final weeks of this, and we really need everyone on board if they can be.  Please help.

Thanks for floating this back to the top.

Anyone with a passion for the outdoors should be beating this drum as often as they can.

I'm quite worried that we're going to see a proposal to renew the program but at such a low level and for such a short term that it will effectively kill it.

Please please please contact your legislators and support a long term renewal with standard funding. 

Done!!!

I made the calls a few weeks ago. 

I sent the e-mail and received an underwhelming response. 

My main concern is that what Stewardship was 20-30 years ago, isn't necessarily the program that we need for the next 10 years. Our goals and objectives are constantly changing, let's take a good hard look at how we want the Stewardship program to look for the next decade before passing $70 million per year bonding authorities. All the best!

Mary

---
Mary Felzkowski | State Senator
12th Senate District
Sen.Felzkowski@legis.wi.gov
(608)266-2509

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Jun 8^th, 2021 at 4:16pm:

I sent the e-mail and received and underwhelming response.  My main concern is that what Stewardship was 20-30 years ago, isn't necessarily the program that we need for the next 10 years. Our goals and objectives are constantly changing, let's take a good hard look at how we want the Stewardship program to look for the next decade before passing $70 million per year bonding authorities. All the best! Mary --- Mary Felzkowski | State Senator 12th Senate District Sen.Felzkowski@legis.wi.gov (608)266-2509

That sucks, but thank you for trying...they need to hear from their constituents.  Become a thorn in their side, and they will start listening.

Jizzy Pearl wrote on Jun 8^th, 2021 at 4:16pm:

I sent the e-mail and received and underwhelming response.  My main concern is that what Stewardship was 20-30 years ago, isn't necessarily the program that we need for the next 10 years. Our goals and objectives are constantly changing, let's take a good hard look at how we want the Stewardship program to look for the next decade before passing $70 million per year bonding authorities. All the best! Mary --- Mary Felzkowski | State Senator 12th Senate District Sen.Felzkowski@legis.wi.gov (608)266-2509

Similar to the response I got about the Menominee River.  "Don't bother us, just send in your taxes and vote for me."

...but we have to keep on it.

Phone calls work better, but not everyone has time for them.

I replied and let her know the benefits to WI of how the funds were used to purchase fishing easements along trout streams, preserve natural areas, help fund recreational hiking and biking trails etc.

See where it goes.  Doesn't sound like she is someone who is "in tune" with these sorts of things.

GOOD NEWS!!

The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee approved the extension of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program for 4 years.  Amount approved is $33.25 million per year. 
The proposal now goes to the legislature.

So far, so good.

pj bamboo wrote on Jun 30^th, 2021 at 4:07pm:

GOOD NEWS!! The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee approved the extension of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program for 4 years.  Amount approved is $33.25 million per year.  The proposal now goes to the legislature. So far, so good.

Thanks for the update, that is great news! 

Keep writing/calling your state reps...

GerardH wrote on Jun 30^th, 2021 at 7:28pm:

Keep writing/calling your state reps...

https://i.postimg.cc/VNHQt51k/Like-Button.png

It's not as much or as long as we were asking for, but it's a nice extension and I'm happy that it was achieved.  Thanks to everyone who called, wrote, or e-mailed.  It mattered, and thank you thank you thank you. 

HEK wrote on Jul 8^th, 2021 at 1:42pm:

It's not as much or as long as we were asking for, but it's a nice extension and I'm happy that it was achieved.  Thanks to everyone who called, wrote, or e-mailed.  It mattered, and thank you thank you thank you.

It's my understanding that conservation easement money was cut, which obviously affects the DNR's ability to obtain public fishing easements and subsequently do HI work if needed.  But still better than the proposed reduced funding...

And yes, thank you to those who petitioned their representatives.

E-Mail I received today:


Quote:

Hello Geoff, Thank you for contacting me and sharing your thoughts about the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.  As your state senator, I appreciate hearing from my constituents as they express their views on matters that are important to them.  Protecting and preserving the environment while providing affordable recreational areas for Wisconsin families is very important to me. The Stewardship Program has played an important role for our state by doing both of those things in the past. You will be pleased to know, that The Joint Finance Committee (JFC) reauthorized the Knowles Nelson Stewardship program for another four years for $32 million, and the Governor signed the budget on July 8th, 2021. Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue.  If you have any questions or concerns about state-related issues in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.  Kathy Bernier Wisconsin State Senator Senate District 23

Which reads to me like, "I didn't really support this, but I'll take this opportunity to try to make it look like I did.

My reply:


Quote:

Senator Bernier, Thank you for the courtesy of a reply, I appreciate it!  I know that I, and many other outdoor activity oriented voters were happy to hear that the funding was re-authorized for another four years.  In a state like Wisconsin, with so many voters devoted to outdoor recreational pursuits, it is critical that our legislative branch support us. A am curious about one thing: It is my understanding that, in a year with a huge projected budget surplus, the money available for easements was cut from $9MM to $6MM.  Can you, or someone on your staff, take a moment to explain how that was allowed to happen? It seems the kind of action that is hard to defend among those of us who may have have supported you over the years.

The shame about cutting easements is that they are the best bang for the buck.

When the State acquires land, it has to make a payment to the local municipality called a payment in lieu of taxes (or PILT).  This basically makes up for the property coming off of the tax roles, and the local tax authority losing that revenue. That's in addition to the purchase price. So a direct land purchase is a hit to both the State coffers, and a hit to the local tax authority.

In addition, the land is now owned by the State, and is no longer in private hands (which is an issue for some). 

Finally, the State now has management responsibilities for land which it owns (which creates overhead, and additional costs).

With easements, none of those occur.  There is no PILT, the land stays in private hands, and the State has either no or minimal maintenance responsibilities and costs.

Easements are really where stewardship funding -- especially for trout angling -- gets put to the best use in my opinion. 

HEK wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 10:23am:

With easements, none of those occur.  There is no PILT, the land stays in private hands, and the State has either no or minimal maintenance responsibilities and costs.

Thanks for the insights - quick question, landowners still pay property taxes but are taxes affected at all by the easement?


Quote:

Easements are really where stewardship funding -- especially for trout angling -- gets put to the best use in my opinion.

I am a big fan of easements but the permanent protection of some rare and unique places paid for by stewardship funding is pretty awesome.

https://gatheringwaters.org/sites/default/files/Stories_of_Stewardship.pdf?_sm_au_=iqVMP5Znj73lN5LNtLQtvKQQssTN4

HEK wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 10:23am:

The shame about cutting easements is that they are the best bang for the buck. When the State acquires land, it has to make a payment to the local municipality called a payment in lieu of taxes (or PILT).  This basically makes up for the property coming off of the tax roles, and the local tax authority losing that revenue. That's in addition to the purchase price. So a direct land purchase is a hit to both the State coffers, and a hit to the local tax authority. In addition, the land is now owned by the State, and is no longer in private hands (which is an issue for some).  Finally, the State now has management responsibilities for land which it owns (which creates overhead, and additional costs). With easements, none of those occur.  There is no PILT, the land stays in private hands, and the State has either no or minimal maintenance responsibilities and costs. Easements are really where stewardship funding -- especially for trout angling -- gets put to the best use in my opinion.

If all I did was trout fish, I'd agree with your sentiment. 

As I get older and other outdoor activities fall by the wayside, I will probably be more lockstep with you.

JGF wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 11:13am:

HEK wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:23am: With easements, none of those occur.  There is no PILT, the land stays in private hands, and the State has either no or minimal maintenance responsibilities and costs. Thanks for the insights - quick question, landowners still pay property taxes but are taxes affected at all by the easement? Quote: Easements are really where stewardship funding -- especially for trout angling -- gets put to the best use in my opinion.  I am a big fan of easements but the permanent protection of some rare and unique places paid for by stewardship funding is pretty awesome. https://gatheringwaters.org/sites/default/files/Stories_of_Stewardship.pdf?_sm_au_=iqVMP5Znj73lN5LNtLQtvKQQssTN4

As to the first question, landowners still pay taxes.  I guess they could go and try to get their assessment reduced because they have given up some rights, but I have never heard of it happening (doesn't it mean it hasn't -- I just don't know about it).

As to the second I agree.  There is a time and place for everything.  From a practical standpoint, though, we just get a lot of mileage (pardon the pun) out of streambank access easements when it comes to trout fishing. 

I'm not opposed to acquisition of land when it is the right land. 

GerardH wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 12:24pm:

HEK wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:23am: The shame about cutting easements is that they are the best bang for the buck. When the State acquires land, it has to make a payment to the local municipality called a payment in lieu of taxes (or PILT).  This basically makes up for the property coming off of the tax roles, and the local tax authority losing that revenue. That's in addition to the purchase price. So a direct land purchase is a hit to both the State coffers, and a hit to the local tax authority. In addition, the land is now owned by the State, and is no longer in private hands (which is an issue for some).  Finally, the State now has management responsibilities for land which it owns (which creates overhead, and additional costs). With easements, none of those occur.  There is no PILT, the land stays in private hands, and the State has either no or minimal maintenance responsibilities and costs. Easements are really where stewardship funding -- especially for trout angling -- gets put to the best use in my opinion.  If all I did was trout fish, I'd agree with your sentiment.  As I get older and other outdoor activities fall by the wayside, I will probably be more lockstep with you.

Well, I don't oppose the acquisition of land when, as I said above, it's the right land.  I guess my only point above -- just so that I'm clear -- is that from a trout angling perspective (which is the group I obviously strive to work for) we really like the easement vehicle because it is an "everybody plays, everybody wins" type proposition that both sides of the aisle can get behind. 

HEK wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 1:00pm:

JGF wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:13am: HEK wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:23am: With easements, none of those occur.  There is no PILT, the land stays in private hands, and the State has either no or minimal maintenance responsibilities and costs. Thanks for the insights - quick question, landowners still pay property taxes but are taxes affected at all by the easement? Quote: Easements are really where stewardship funding -- especially for trout angling -- gets put to the best use in my opinion.  I am a big fan of easements but the permanent protection of some rare and unique places paid for by stewardship funding is pretty awesome. https://gatheringwaters.org/sites/default/files/Stories_of_Stewardship.pdf?_sm_au_=iqVMP5Znj73lN5LNtLQtvKQQssTN4 As to the first question, landowners still pay taxes.  I guess they could go and try to get their assessment reduced because they have given up some rights, but I have never heard of it happening (doesn't it mean it hasn't -- I just don't know about it). As to the second I agree.  There is a time and place for everything.  From a practical standpoint, though, we just get a lot of mileage (pardon the pun) out of streambank access easements when it comes to trout fishing.  I'm not opposed to acquisition of land when it is the right land.

If I remember correctly...

A landowner can apply for a one time tax-deductible charitable donation for a conservation easement and property taxes remain the same.

If a landowner puts their property into MFL then annual property taxes are reduced.