Trust buys land to be logged and preserved

Sacramento Bee ^ | February 5, 2004 | Stuart Leavenworth

[farmfriend]

A leading land trust has completed purchase of a 23,780-acre timber tract in Mendocino County, the first time a conservation group has purchased a working forest in California with a goal of mixing restoration and timber harvests.

Helped by $10 million in state grants and loans, the Virginia-based Conservation Fund formally closed Wednesday on the $18 million deal, one of the largest transactions of its kind ever on the North Coast.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[farmfriend]

The audacity of this just slays me.

[talleyman]

Don't hold your breath waiting for the logging to begin...

[Carry_Okie]

Don't hold your breath waiting for the logging to begin...

Little do you know. These creeps get to do whatever they want. It's charity you know.

[farmfriend]

Don't hold your breath waiting for the logging to begin...

I'll bet it does. They don't care if the forest is logged, they just don't want the timber companies to make a profit on it. The Nature Conservancy has a long history of logging, mining and oil drilling on it's land.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Johnny_Cipher]

The audacity of this just slays me.

What's so "audacious" about it? The trust now owns the land - shouldn't they get to do what they want with it?

Helped by $10 million in state grants and loans, the Virginia-based Conservation Fund formally closed Wednesday on the $18 million deal, one of the largest transactions of its kind ever on the North Coast.

Ah, I see. You're right then of course. Bet the taxpayers have a warm feeling knowing that they're paying for prime logging acreage. Now they'll start getting tax rebates from the proceeds, won't they?

(Please forgive the sarcasm).

[hattend]

BTTT

[Eva]

Oh, the logging will begin. This is the group that turns around and sells the property to big donors for less than the property value due to the conservancy dedication and that inturn reduces the property taxes as well. That way all their lefty friends get to build huge estates in the middle of beautiful, secluded properties that aren't available to the rest of us.

[farmfriend]

Oh it gets better. You have the Pew and Packard foundations giving to enviro groups to sue for some endangered species so the forests can't be logged. Here in the US that is. The timber interests that the Pew and Packard foundations own over seas now have no competition. So the timber company can't make a profit logging so they must sell the land. In order to keep a developer from buying the land, the land trust comes in with government grant money to buy the land at reduce prices. Then they usually sell the land to the government, after having purchased it with government money in the first place. This time they propose to log it for themselves. They won't have the over head and law suits the logging companies have though. This is good since timber prices are so low that they won't make a profit otherwise.

The interesting part will come when we see what size trees they cut down.

[Johnny_Cipher]

The interesting part will come when we see what size trees they cut down.

Probably the thin ones. Attornies always need more pencils and legal pads.

[antiRepublicrat]

It's a fine idea, if the environmentalists want to keep things they way they want it then they should just buy the property instead of doing it through terrorist tactics and legislation.

The part I don't like is using taxpayer's money to do it. Who authorized this?

[Daryl L.Hunter]

The tract was previously owned by Coastal Forestlands, a Willits company that in 1999 proposed to convert much of its land to vineyards.

Is the environmental movement making me paranoid or am I correct to assume that the reason that Forestlands (a logging company) was going to convert prime redwood land to vineyards was possibly because the environmental movement makes it impossible to harvest timber anymore therefore it is more expedient to remove the land from timber production than to fight an uphill battle?

Upper Valley Free Press	Daryl L. Hunter - Publisher
Citizens For A Freer America

[TheBattman]

BUT -

If we got together and bought a similar tract of land, would we not push our right TO have logging?

So, this group has the right to put their money where there mouths are and buy the land and protect it from logging. It's called private property rights.

I want to see the greeines continue to put their money where their mouths are - and buy the lands they want to protect. By the same accord, other groups should be free to buy the land for the purpose of logging, if they so desire.

[nightdriver]

"Helped by $10 million in state grants and loans, the Virginia-based Conservation Fund formally closed Wednesday on the $18 million deal, one of the largest transactions of its kind ever on the North Coast."

This is governmental abuse of the first order. How many other businesses are taxed so that the government can shut them down and give the money to some rinky-dink outfit to buy their revenue-producing resources at pennies on the dollar?

Taxing Californians to put Californian taxpayers out of business sounds just about par for liberal legislators.

[farmfriend]

Who authorized this?

The voters of CA through two bonds measures in consecutive years. One was portrayed as a clean water act but was in reallity a land grab.

[farmfriend]

Yes, see my post #11.

[SierraWasp]

Land trusts, nonprofit groups that pool public and private funds to preserve wildlands and open space, have helped preserve millions of acres nationwide.

This transaction is somewhat different. Instead of holding the land until it can be purchased by a state or federal agency, the Conservation Fund plans to own it and manage it for timber, with proceeds used to repair logging roads, enhance habitat and provide for public access.

Just to let my troubled mind go limp for a respite, I sometimes listen to Phil Hendrie on KFI in LA. He's a Democrat, of course, and last night he was defending Bush to some abject leftist that was trying to call him a Republican because of his Bush defense.

He came up with the classic definition of the difference between parties, out of frustration with the nut, that plays directly into the subject of this thread.

He stated: "Democrats believe that government is their powerful public partner that helps them do all the public good! Republicans believe that government should be smaller, leaner and meaner!"

The concept of "A Public/Private Partnership" is exactly what they are carrying out in this scenario, which is why they are so orgasmic over this sick sucky arrangement. Only problem is... the "private" part is not individuals, but the collective GANG-GREEN NGO EnvironMental Group!!!

EVERYONE PLEASE Note the government will end up owning the land if you read the article carefully. This is what they have in mind for the entire "Range of Light" Sierra-Nevada mountain range!!!

[Daryl L.Hunter]

The interesting part will come when we see what size trees they cut down.

You aren't insinuating that they would only cut the profitable ones are you?