Comprehensive Plan Letter of Objections

By Tom Wiensch June 25, 2025- Your chance to comment on comprehensive land use planning by Oneida County is coming on July 14th. County comprehensive plans must be updated every ten years. The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee is close to recommending a new plan to the County Board. The Committee’s draft of that plan indicates significant steps away from conservation and toward development, including development of metallic mines.

On July 14th, at 5:00 P.M., the Committee will hold a public hearing on the new comprehensive plan, and members of the public will be allowed to comment. The hearing will be held in the Community Room of the Oneida County Sheriff’s Office at 2000 East Winnebago St. in Rhinelander. Your input on July 14th is critical.

Although comprehensive plans do not directly serve as land use regulations, they are very significant documents in that certain land use regulations, including zoning codes, must comply with comprehensive plans.

The Committee’s draft plan contains very concerning language that deviates greatly from the past plan. Examples include the following.

• · “The long-term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources must be considered in any land-use plan. To achieve this goal, the county shall pursue and guarantee appropriate multiple uses of land, including but not limited to . . . metallic and non-metallic mining.”
• · “Require cost benefit analysis for all major conservation projects on public/easement lands, including for forest management plans. Oneida County will evaluate and determine the cost benefit analysis of any and all guidance, executive action, or mandated action offered by any agency, state and federal, governor or president, before initiating any action pursuant to the action requested, to be approved by the county and paid for by the requesting party.”
• · Discourage the conversion of existing privately owned lands to public lands using federal, state, and local tax dollars to purchase existing MFL lands or purchase easements over them. Reducing the tax base in perpetuity is antithetical to the interests of county residents and gives up local control.
• · Oneida County requires that all federal and state agencies and lands utilizing federal, or state funding coordinate any land use activities with the county and impacted towns

Does Oneida County really:

• · Want to “guarantee” metallic mining after the citizens soundly rejected it in a referendum?
• · Have any authority to require the President of the United States (or state and federal agencies, or the governor) to provide cost benefit analyses before undertaking projects on state and federal lands?
• · Want to take an oppositional position on the rights of private landowners to sell conservation easements to the State?
• · Have the ability to require state and federal agencies to “coordinate” (whatever that means) with the county before using its own land?

These are only a few samples of the language included in the draft plan. For more detailed information, please read the other articles on comprehensive planning on this website, which can be found on the "MORE" dropdown tab under “County Comprehensive Plan”.

Readers may recall that the concept of “coordination” came up in Oneida County years ago, when three towns, instead of creating their own comprehensive plans, sent “notices of coordination” to the County. After much time and many tax dollars were spent, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a formal Attorney General’s Opinion stating that the use of the word “coordination” in various Wisconsin statutes dealing with municipal planning did not impose affirmative duties upon certain municipalities that are in addition to any other affirmative obligations that are imposed under those statutes. That iteration of coordination was a train going nowhere.

Now, the ill-defined concept of “coordination” seems to be back. Interestingly, “coordination” is touted by the Texas based “American Stewards of Liberty” (ASL.) The website of ASL, contains a statement by Wisconsin Congressman Tom Tiffany in support of coordination. It is anything but clear however, how a Wisconsin County would have the authority to require the State and Federal governments to “coordinate” when planning how to use state and federal lands, or what exactly such “coordination” would entail.

So, it appears that the P&D Committee is prepared to recommend a comprehensive plan that will likely last for ten years and will move planning away from conservation of the resources that contribute to our recreation and economy. You have a chance to speak out against these changes. July 14th is the day. Please consider attending the public hearing.

Agenda for hearing can be found here: https://www.oneidacountywi.gov/wp-content/uploads/meetings/7.14.25-Comprehensive-Plan-2025-NPH.pdf

By Tom Wiensch April 8, 2025- The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee has written a draft of a new Comprehensive Plan for the County. Comprehensive plans act as local governments’ guides to development. Although they do not directly serve as land use regulations, certain land use regulations, including zoning regulations, must be consistent with comprehensive plans. The plans, which address development, land use, agriculture and nature resources, relate to clean water issues and other environmental issues.

The Committee’s plan includes the requirement of “coordination.” This concept is sprinkled through the document. Examples of how it is used include:

“All land use planning processes, including on all federal and state land, and lands utilizing federal or state funding and including any and all guidance, executive, or other mandated actions, shall coordinate with the county and towns . . .”

“All state and federal agencies and lands utilizing federal money shall coordinate with Oneida County’s comprehensive plan for all land planning and management activities on state and federal lands within the jurisdiction of the county. . .”

“Notification, consultation, and coordination with the county is required at the earliest time possible for any land planning and/or proposed action by state and/or federal agencies, or nonprofit organizations, or for any change in existing activities, newly permitted activities, or changes in regulations that may affect the economic basis of the county.”

“Oneida County requires that all federal and state agencies and lands utilizing federal, or state funding coordinate any land use activities with the county and impacted towns, in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and purposes of those laws with the County.”

These are just a few examples of the use of “coordination” in the plan. The plan seems to attempt to give the County veto power over how the State and Federal Governments and private landowners use their lands.

This language raises number of serious questions, including at least the following:

Isn't this what zoning codes are for? Since the County already has a zoning code that addresses land use in detail, why would it want to superimpose on that a broad requirement to “coordinate” land use decisions? Will there be a clash between ordinary zoning and “coordination”?

Is there anything in the law that allows counties to dictate to the state and federal governments how they use their lands? If so, does the law grant the extensive kind of power to counties that this plan seems to require?

Is there anything in the law outside of the formal zoning process that allows counties to force landowners to coordinate with them about the use of their private lands?

Assuming that there is some basis in law to force landowners to coordinate their decisions with counties, does Oneida County really wish to impose such a burden on landowners?

Would Oneida County even want to force all landowners to coordinate their land use decisions with the County? Does the County have sufficient resources to handle such bureaucratic expansion and do so in an even-handed manner without creating troublesome precedent? Will this result in a need to add staff, hold more meetings, or become involved in expensive litigation?

Why would the county treat non-profit entities different from for-profit entities. Is there a legal basis to do that?

Given that county zoning ordinances (including shoreland and wetland zoning) must be consistent with comprehensive plans, how much will the existing ordinances have to be rewritten, and how will the rewrites affect County zoning as it now exists?

About fifteen years ago, the concept of coordination came to the County. In that iteration, instead of creating comprehensive plans, three towns sent “notices of coordination to the County.” Wisely, the County asked for an Attorney General’s opinion on the matter. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued a formal opinion. In it he stated that the question he was answering was:

“Does the use of the word “coordination” in various Wisconsin statutes dealing with municipal planning by itself impose affirmative duties upon certain municipalities that are in addition to any other affirmative obligations that are imposed under those statutes?”

Attorney General Van Hollen’s answer to that question was a resounding “No.” 

Quite a lot of taxpayers funded resources were expended on “coordination” before that answer was obtained. Now, the County is attempting to require coordination by private landowners, the State of Wisconsin, and the United States Government.

Landowners and taxpayers should hope that the P&D Committee members have carefully considered the consequences of what they are suggesting. Hopefully the County will proceed in a conservative and cautious manner and rely on solid legal advice before attempting to create some kind of broad veto power over land use.

By Eric Rempala April 4, 2025- In a difficult to follow and disjointed 2-year process, the Oneida County P&D Committee has proposed extensive changes to the county's Comprehensive Plan, with the end result being less emphasis on conservation and a lot more on extraction and development. These changes could have impacts on not just private land, but also could affect county, state, and federal lands. Though there are many other examples of P&D proposed language changes to take issue with, I'll concentrate the American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) language and concepts that the Committee is proposing to add to the plan.

First of all, who are American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) and what is Coordination?

The American Stewards of Liberty are a Texas-based group that has opposed land and water conservation, and advocates for natural resource exploitation. They promote mineral mining, increased grazing, timber cutting, for-profit commercial and industrial development, and oil and gas drilling on Federal lands. They spin their message as being about freedom and personal choice, about confronting the “radical environmental movement".  Despite that messaging, they have opposed the rights of landowners in Nebraska to place conservation easements on their land.  One wonders if they realize that 80% of voters nationwide support land conservation. 

If you want to understand how ASL has become involved in Oneida County, the Wisconsin Examiner article Anti-conservation group works to influence land use policy in three northern Wisconsin counties • Wisconsin Examiner is a must read. A quote from the article shares ASL's ideology of "coordination". 

"At the center of ASL’s ideology is the idea of “coordination,” a discredited legal theory which holds that any conservation efforts that use federal or state dollars require the approval and “coordination” of local governments. Similar to constitutional sheriffs who believe they’re the ultimate arbiter of which laws to enforce within their jurisdictions, ASL promotes the idea to county officials aiming to prevent conservation projects."

Does Oneida County want to control how Federal Land is managed?

In an article by High Country News, Counties use a ‘coordination’ clause to fight the feds - High Country News . It explains how placing this "coordination" language in a Comprehensive Plan might lead to a county believing they can control what happens on federal land. A quote from the article likens the coordination efforts to a Sagebrush Rebellion.

"Many groups, including environmentalists, try to influence land management with scientific research and alternative management proposals, but policy experts say that the coordination movement has a distinctly anti-federal government flavor — a Sagebrush Rebellion in bureaucratic clothing, with links to state efforts to take over federal lands. Coordination proponents are “essentially arguing a county would have veto authority on federal land decisions,” says Martin Nie, director of the Bolle Center for People and Forests at the University of Montana. And federal officials, who interpret “coordination” very differently, fear it’s stoking more conflicts than it resolves by misinforming locals."

Below is the P&D's newly proposed Goal 4 "Coordination" language that the Committee added to their proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of Goal #4 was added to the plans Land Use Chapter 7. The Goal 4 language came directly from Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director of Great Lakes Timber Professionals. At a recent P&D meeting that he attended, Mr. Schienebeck indicated that GLTPA has over 20 directors on its board, and that he worked with a committee to prepare these recommendations. He indicated that Senator Tom Tiffany, Lakeland Times writer Richard Moore, and Margaret Byfield of the Texas based group “American Stewards of Liberty” (ASL) were involved.

"Goal 4:

 Coordinate all state and federal agencies with a presence in Oneida County regarding all state and federally owned land planning activities.

 Objective: 

 • All state and federal agencies and lands utilizing federal money shall coordinate with Oneida County’s comprehensive plan for all land planning and management activities on state and federal lands within the jurisdiction of the county, to ensure consistent and harmonized policies across the three levels of government. 

 • Notification, consultation, and coordination with the county is required at the earliest time possible for any land planning and/or proposed action by state and/or federal agencies, or nonprofit organizations, or for any change in existing activities, newly permitted activities, or changes in regulations that may affect the economic basis of the county. Consultation and coordination with the county is necessary to determine the full scope of potential social and economic effects of proposed activities. The county considers that consultation and coordination must include all impacted towns on all forest management issues.

 Policy: 

 • Oneida County requires that all federal and state agencies and lands utilizing federal, or state funding coordinate any land use activities with the county and impacted towns, in compliance with applicable federal and state laws and purposes of those laws with the County."

Is this how the County would attempt to control projects or activities on both state and federal land? Would it mean mining and vast unsustainable forestry projects?  The County, and in particular the P&D Committee, has been a poor judge of public opinion when it comes to mining. Could we expect them to consider public opinion in controlling public land?

Is P&D Committee considering taking away property owners' rights to place easements on their land?

Is the P&D Committee using ASL language to restrict property rights? Well, with newly proposed P&D Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 Natural Resources policy language (below), again, one has to wonder.

"Chapter 2: Natural, Agricultural, and Cultural Resources

 Policy:

 Discourage the conversion of existing privately owned lands to public lands using federal, state, and local tax dollars to purchase existing MFL lands or   purchase easements over them. Reducing the tax base in perpetuity is antithetical to the interests of county residents and gives up local control."

What type of easements is the P&D looking to discourage? Well, an example of such an easement might be like those The Conservation Fund placed on land they owned to create the Pelican River Forest. Those easements prioritized economically sustainable forestry and enhanced public access to 70,000 acres of forest just north and west of Rhinelander. Could the County actually be looking to take away a property owner's right to put an easement on their land? Is that even possible?

Apparently so, at least in Nebraska. An excerpt from the American Stewards of Liberty website Oklahoma Bill Gives Local Governments Authority to Deny Conservation Easements - American Stewards of Liberty states:

"Oklahoma State Senator Casey Murdock (R) has filed Senate Bill 980 that gives local governing authorities the ability to approve or deny a conservation easement placed on private land within their jurisdiction. The bill is similar to the Nebraska Statute 76-2,112(3), which gives counties this same authority.  Many counties in Nebraska have recently used this provision to deny easements they find conflicts with their local comprehensive plan."

Time is running out for Towns and the public to give input on the proposed Comprehensive Plan language.

The 60-day Oneida County Towns Comprehensive Plan review period ends April 27th. That will be the last day towns can share concerns or recommended changes to the plan.  It would also be a good idea for any resident input to be given before this deadline. 

After the April 27th deadline, the County will post a Class 1, 30-day notice for the Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing to take place sometime in June. The Public Hearing in June would be the best time for in-person testimony. You may also share emailed or telephone input for the Public Hearing if you cannot attend in person.

After all public comment is considered and any changes made the final Comprehensive Plan language will go to the County Board for approval. Most likely at the August County Board meeting.

To supply public comment by email, simply send your comments to the Oneida County Clerk at occlerk@oneidacountywi.gov 

Remember to include your name and the address where you live as well as any properties you own in Oneida County. Ask for your email to be forwarded to the County P&D Committee.

The complete draft of the proposed Comprehensive Plan can be found at Oneida-County-DRAFT-Comp-Plan.pdf

A summary of changes made throughout the Comprehensive Plan process can be found at Oneida-GOPs-Summary-of-Changes-1.22.2025.pdf

By Ron Eckstein December 17, 2024- 

To Members:

Oneida County Planning & Development Committee

Oneida County Conservation & UW-Extension Committee

  Thank you for your service to Oneida County and for your important work updating the Oneida County Comprehensive Land Use Plan over the last year and a half.

The 2013 plan served the county well and in the past 12 years many new people and businesses moved into our area. What makes Oneida County an attractive place to live, and work is our way of life and our values. Those values include a commitment to our natural resources, clean water, abundant wildlife, recreation opportunities, and productive forests. We recommend Oneida County continue the 2013 policies that attracted those new people and businesses.

  To be successful, the updated Comprehensive Plan must remain true to our values. Unfortunately, a comparison of the 2013 plan to the draft 2024 plan shows a dramatic move away from keeping our forests healthy, our wildlife abundant and our outdoor recreation diverse.

  Of particular concern are recommendations from the Great Lakes Timber Professionals. We cannot understand why the timber professionals support fragmenting our forestland into small parcels. All research on forest management shows that forest management is not economically feasible on most small parcels in light of today’s large expensive logging equipment. In addition, landowners of small forest parcels are far less likely to conduct timber sales. Parcelization of larger blocks of forest result in fewer timber sales and the subsequent loss of forest productivity and wildlife habitat.

  Another important concern is the recommendation to take away the property rights of private forest landowners. Some private landowners want to manage their land to promote sustainable forestry, wildlife habitat and maintain water quality. These landowners may choose to use private conservation easements or sell to a public agency.

  The proposed changes are not in the public interest, do not represent our values and they degrade forest productivity, wildlife habitat, clean water, and our way of life. In addition, the recommendations appear to have been written by the American Stewards of Liberty, a Texas group.

  Attached are research studies conducted by Wisconsin DNR’s Division of Forestry. Please read them to help understand the relationship between public land, private MFL land and the ability of towns and counties to provide vital services. 

 FR-833-Evaluating-the-Association-Between-Public-Access-Land-and-Local-Tax-Rates 

 FR-835-Timber-Sale-Impact-Estimate-for-the-Proposed-Pelican-River-Forest-Easement 

 FR-834-Economic-Impacts-of-Timberland-Conservation-Easement-Acquisition 

Sincerely,

Ron & Jan Eckstein

By Eric Rempala October 24, 2024- The Oneida County Planning and Development (P&D) Committee continues to plow ahead with significant changes to the county's Comprehensive Plan, remember that the current actions are those of the P&D Committee only. The P&D Committee is comprised of five County Supervisors appointed by County Chairman Scott Holewinski.  

 P&D Committee Member Contacts:

• Bob Almekinder
• Michael Timmons
• Scott Holewinski
• Mitchell Ives
• Dan Hess

When the P&D process is complete the public will have a chance to weigh in at a public hearing. After the Committe considers all public comment at the hearing, the finished product will be introduced to the County Board where a vote will be taken to approve or reject the newly proposed language. The public will get a final chance for comment before the vote at that County Board meeting. With all this in mind our staff at OCCWA has put together some things for our readers to consider.

 The Oneida County Planning and Development Committee has been working on creating a new comprehensive plan for the County, a process which must be undertaken. Comprehensive plans are required under Wisconsin law, and must include a number of elements, among which are land use, agriculture and natural resources. Once a comprehensive plan is adopted, certain county ordinances, including general zoning and shoreland zoning must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Because of that, comprehensive plans have effects on such things as mining and shoreland and other development, which in turn affect water quality.

  In the process of creating its plan, the Committee has received comments from the public. The Great Lakes Timber Producers Association (GLTPA) provided comments. A document titled “GLTPA Oneida County Land Use Plan Comments”, signed by Henry Schienebeck, Executive Director of the Great Lakes Timber Professionals (GLTPA) was provided to Oneida County Planning and Zoning Director Karl Jennrich. Mr. Schienebeck also spoke about the plan at a recent P&D Committee meeting.

  GLTPA, which is headquartered in Oneida County, has a website which contains statements that read:

• “Our Mission Enhancing Multiple Use Forests for Future Generations”

• “Provides proven leadership in the Lake States Forest products industry for over 70 years. GLTPA is a non-profit organization proud to represent members in Michigan and Wisconsin and is committed to leading Forest Products Industry in sustainable forest management.”

GLTPA’s comments to the comprehensive plan include recommendations of language that GLTPA believes should be included in the plan. Some of the language that GLTPA recommends including is:

• 1. COORDINATION
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “All land use planning processes, including on all federal and state land, and lands utilizing federal or state funding and including any and all guidance, executive, or other mandated actions, shall coordinate with the county and towns and work to resolve all planning conflicts to the satisfaction of the county and towns prior to finalizing plans or other actions.”

• “Notification, consultation, and coordination with the county is required at the earliest time possible for any land planning and/or proposed action by state and/or federal agencies, or nonprofit organizations, or for any change in existing activities, newly permitted activities, or changes in regulations that may affect the economic basis of the county. Consultation and coordination with the county is necessary to determine the full scope of potential social and economic effects of proposed activities. The county considers that consultation and coordination must include all impacted towns on all forest management issues.”

• QUESTIONS – Does GLTPA believe that the County has the legal authority to control how the State of Wisconsin and the United States manage their lands?

• 2. PRIVATE LAND SALES
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Conversion of private property to public for nonprofit conservation purposes shall not be approved unless it is determined by the county that the long-term economic impact will be negligible.”
• QUESTIONS – Does GLTPA believe that the County has the legal authority to prevent private landowners from selling or gifting their land to the State or other governmental units? Shouldn’t private landowners have the right to sell their land to any willing buyer that they choose?

• 3. SHORELAND ZONING
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Shoreland restrictions can impair property rights and harm the local economy. All proposed shoreland policy shall be coordinated with the county and be consistent with the county comprehensive plan. County shoreland regulations cannot be more restrictive than state law and administrative code.”
• QUESTIONS – Does the County have the legal authority to require “coordination”? What does limiting shoreland protection have to do with timber production?

• 4. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Oneida County discourages the use of the MFL program in conservation easements. The two programs are inconsistent or at odds in their duration. The MFL program contracts are 25 or 50 years whereas conservation easements are established into perpetuity. The MFL program provides a mechanism for leaving the program. Reducing the tax base in perpetuity is antithetical to the interests of county residents and gives up local control.”

             and

• “If there are new easements, require any new easements to sunset after 15 years. Allow renewal through an approved re-assessment of the easement’s compliance and compatibility with current conditions. Analyze all existing easements on public lands every 15 years for compliance and compatibility with current conditions, calling for extinguishment of the easement if it does not do so.”

             and

• “All new conservation easements must contain a buyback provision in the contract, allowing the landowner to make the property whole if they have been negatively impacted by the agreement.”
• QUESTIONS – Why does GLTPA want the county to discourage all conservation easements on MFL land, when, in some cases, such as that of the Pelican River Forest Easement, conservation easements have been used to conserve land for forestry purposes? What authority does the County have to discourage or prohibit people from placing easements on their land? Shouldn’t private landowners have the right to place easements on their own land if they wish? Does the County have the legal authority to require private landowners to place length limits and buyback provisions in their private contracts? Why should county government intrude in private contracts in this way?

• 5. LAND LEASE LIMITATIONS
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “Define forested lands as agricultural lands for legal purposes and impose the constitutional requirement for agricultural lands that all leases of such land should be 15 years or less.”
• QUESTIONS – Does the County have the legal authority to limit private landowner’s ability to lease their lands? Shouldn’t private landowners be allowed to choose the length of leases they enter into?

• 6. FLOODPLAIN MAPS
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Coordinate with FEMA to update floodplain maps with new technology.” and “All floodplain maps shall be updated in coordination with the county.”
• QUESTIONS - Does the County have the legal authority to control how a federal agency draws maps? What does this have to do with timber production?

• 7. MINING
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Pursue metallic mining through the county’s non-metallic mining and metallic mining exploration, bulk sampling, and mining ordinance while complying with state laws and balancing any projects with the interests of county residents.”
• QUESTIONS – What does this have to do with timber production? If anything, wouldn’t this have the potential to encourage land to be removed from timber production?

• 8. TRAILS
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Prohibit any further land acquisition or conservation easements for trail projects. Lease agreements must not run for more than 15 years.” NOTE – GLTPA recommends that this language be added to language which reads as follows: “Encourage the development of a comprehensive County-wide trail plan that includes facilities for hikers, bikers, ATVs, and disabled and elderly individuals and a system that ties together attractions and natural and cultural resources throughout the county.”
• QUESTIONS – Does the County have the legal authority to stop state or federal agencies, or private landowners from developing trails? What does preventing trail development have to do with timber production?

• 9. TRANSPORATION
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION – “Evaluate the scope and existence of the Northwoods Transit System by subjecting the enterprise to a cost benefit analysis. At times, the system has been heavily underused, and an updated study should guide whether it is to be continued, and, if so, at what level of subsidy, if any.”
• QUESTIONS – What does this have to do with timber production?

• 10. ROAD PLANNING AND SAFETY, BIKE TRAILS, ETC.
• GLTPA RECOMMENDATION - “ELIMINATE ALL OF THE ABOVE!”
• NOTE – The part that GLTPA recommends being removed reads:
• “Work with local governmental units to plan for a network of interconnected roads in planned development areas to control highway access, preserve rural character, and improve access to these areas. Space roadway access according to minimum standards to increase safety and preserve capacity. Support expanded bike accommodations on County Highways with resurfacing/reconstruction projects and additional off-road bike trails that use grant funding.”
• QUESTIONS - Is GLTPA against road planning and safety, and bike trails? Why? What do these things have to do with timber management?

• 11. LAND DEVELOPMENT
• GLTPA COMMENT – “defeats the goal to provide an adequate supply of developable land for the future. Such development may be desirable, depending on community needs, private landowner wishes, and the willingness and ability of developers to pay a fair share of infrastructure costs, which leads to the next policy: . . .”
• NOTE – This suggestion is in response to language that reads “Discourage sprawling, low-density development where there is no existing infrastructure and service capacity.”
• QUESTIONS - What does this have to do with timber production? Wouldn’t this type of development have the potential to remove timber lands from production?

Although not all of the examples above relate to water quality, they illustrate the breadth of GLTPA’s comments on the comprehensive plan.

  At the recent P&D meeting that he attended, Mr. Schienebeck indicated that GLTPA has over 20 directors on its board, and that he worked with a committee to prepare these recommendations. He indicated that Senator Tom Tiffany, Lakeland Times writer Richard Moore, and Margaret Byfield of the Texas based group “American Stewards of Liberty” (ASL) were involved.

  The ASL website speaks out against conservation easements and says that it trains local governments in a strategy called “coordination.” The ASL website also indicates that “ASL is the nation’s oldest property rights organization run by Americans steeped in the battle to protect this essential right.” The level of involvement of ASL in creating the GLTPA recommendations is unclear. It is clear, however, that by suggesting government restrictions on the sale, leasing, and other conveyance of private lands, GLTPA is suggesting that the County severely limit, rather than protect private property rights.

  A bit over a decade ago, three towns in Oneida County sent “notices of coordination” to Oneida County instead of developing comprehensive plans. Ultimately, the Oneida County Corporation Counsel asked Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to issue an attorney general’s opinion on the subject. One of the questions asked of Attorney General Van Hollen was:

• “Does the use of the word “coordination” in various Wisconsin statutes dealing with municipal planning by itself impose affirmative duties upon certain municipalities that are in addition to any other affirmative obligations that are imposed under those statutes?”

Attorney General Van Hollen’s answer was, ultimately “No.” Tax dollars and time had been expended putting forth these “notices of coordination”, which Attorney General Van Hollen ultimately said had no legal effect.

The questions now are:

1. Why is GLTPA expending its resources advocating for governmental policies that, in some cases, have little or nothing to do with timber production?
2. Will Oneida County have its legal counsel offer opinions on whether it has the right to adopt GLTPA’s suggestions, including suggestions to restrict the land use of the state and federal government, private organizations, and private individuals in the ways that GLTPA suggests?
3. If Oneida County were to include “coordination in its comprehensive plan, would it have any more legal meaning than it did when the three towns sent notices of coordination in lieu of developing comprehensive plans?

Hopefully our elected county officials will adopt policies that are strongly grounded in the law, and that represent the wishes of the voters.

Note – The comments of GLTPA were too long (31 pages) to be included in this article in their entirety. Readers may be able to obtain copies of the written comments submitted by GLTPA from the Oneida County Planning and Zoning Department at Planning & Zoning – Oneida County, WI 

 Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association (GLTPA) invites Texas based Pelican River Forest opponent to speak. April 12, 2024- A recent Wisconsin Examiner article by Henry Redman covers Texas based American Stewards of Liberty (ASL) speaker Margaret Byfield's presentation at the GLTPA Spring Celebration.   Leader of anti-conservation group speaks at timber conference sponsored by UW-Madison center • Wisconsin Examiner   As you may recall, local officials recently attempted to contest privately owned Pelican River Forest easement funding using ASL like concepts. Congressman Tiffany admitted recommending ASL's Margaret Byfield to local officials in a WPR article Pelican River Forest secures funding, but local leaders want federal grant revoked - WPR   " Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, who objected to several land purchases as a state senator, said he suggested local governments work with Margaret Byfield, the executive director for American Stewards of Liberty."  Mr. Redman's article shines a bright light on ASL's ideology which was reflected in Byfield's presentation. Notwithstanding the entertainment value, the article must be read to be believed.  It is unclear as to how supporting and anti-conservation group benefits local forestry, but GLTPA's response quoted from Examiner article was " Henry Schienebeck, executive director of the GLTPA, said in an email that he wouldn’t comment on what Byfield said during her speech, but said the organization’s members are committed to managing Wisconsin’s forests sustainably." 

  By Kathleen Cooper February 13, 2024-Have you ever seen the “Hunger Games” movies? They depict the US taken over by exploitative forces that divide the country into twelve “sacrifice zones”, or districts. Each district has a specialty, such as agriculture, manufacturing, lumber harvesting, mining, etc. This dystopian future for America is not as fictional and far-fetched as you may think, if the American Stewards of Liberty, Tom Tiffany, and Mary Felzkoski have their way. 

  The American Stewards of Liberty are a Texas-based group that is against land and water conservation, and advocates for natural resource exploitation. They promote mineral mining, increased grazing, timber cutting, for-profit commercial and industrial development, and oil and gas drilling on Federal lands. They spin their message as being about freedom and personal choice, about confronting the “radical environmental movement,” when their true motives are about extracting natural resources. Their goals are extremely unpopular, since 80% of voters nationwide support land conservation.

  Our own Tom Tiffany was one of the keynote speakers at the American Stewards for Liberty’s 30x30 summit in September 2023. Tiffany is also bringing the America Stewards for Liberty’s agenda to Wisconsin and attempting to stall or halt the Federal funding for the purchase of the conservation easements in the Pelican River Forest. They did not succeed…this time. Tiffany has also suggested that local governments work with Margaret Byfield, the executive director of the American Stewards for Liberty, while updating their Comprehensive Land Use Plans, on which the Oneida County Planning and Development Committee is now working.

  Preserving our environment is extremely popular with the people of Oneida County. We realize how fortunate we are to live in a place where there is clean air, forestland, clear lakes, rivers, and streams. The proposed Lynne mine was defeated in 2018 by 64% of the voters. The county board knows what the people of Oneida want, they just choose to ignore our wishes, and are considering changing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan from using our public lands for recreation and forestry to using it for development of extractive industries (mining) and other industrial development.

  Please don’t let this Texas group have a say about land use in northern Wisconsin. Contact your county board supervisor, by phone or email, and tell him/her that you want clean air, clean water, and forests to be left alone in Oneida County, and open to the public. Your children and grandchildren will thank you. 

For more coverage on this issue- 

See our January posts by Joe Hovel and Kathleen Cooper.

Also, listen to 30-minute Radio interview on Pelican River Forest with Charlie Carlin of Gathering Waters covering the whole process including the recent controversy.  [AUDIO] Pelican River Forest Conservation Efforts Run Into Political Hurdle | WHBY 

Also see Texas Observer coverage Conservatives Against Conservation (texasobserver.org)