Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 77.01 (2026)

Purposes

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

77.0177.01 Purposes. It is the intent of this subchapter to encourage a policy of protecting from destructive or premature cutting the forest growth in this state, and of reproducing and growing for the future adequate crops through sound forestry practices of forest products on lands not more useful for other purposes, so that such lands shall continue to furnish recurring forest crops for commercial use with public hunting and fishing as extra public benefits, all in a manner which shall not hamper the towns in which such lands lie from receiving their just tax revenue from such lands.

77.01 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 215; 1985 a. 332 s. 251 (2).

77.01 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See also ch. NR 302.03, Wis. adm. code.

77.01 AnnotationRequests by individual legislators and town or county boards for delay in issuing orders pursuant to this chapter present no basis for withholding actions by the department. 61 Atty. Gen. 134.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2006 · leading case: Rotfeld v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 434 N.W.2d 617 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rotfeld v. Wisconsin Dep't of Nat. Resources, 434 N.W.2d 617 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “DNR argues, in effect, that it is DNR’s policy to minimize this conflict, and construing sec.”

Warnecke v. Est. of Warnecke, 2006 WI App 62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “" See Wis. Stat. § 77.01 . In Rotfeld , we recognized these purposes were at odds with each other and concluded the provision declassifying lands and assessing tax penalties was mandatory, because the declassification and penalty provisions served the second purpose of…”

Est. of Holmes v. Comm'r, 62 T.C.M. 839 (Tax Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “16 (West 1989) (the forest cropland act). In 1984, an employee of the State Department of Natural Resources prepared and signed a Forest Crop Law Management Schedule (the forest management schedule), which stated: The following schedule of mandatory harvesting recommendations…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.