Timber giant takes a hit

Plum Creek’s Risky Businesses

Comment By backcountryhunter, 11-01-07

Plum Creek is the worst neighbor a Montanan could have. Selling out the last of our timber jobs, public access, and our quality of life all to send a quick buck to rich out-of-state investors. Anybody with any sense should boycott their properties and the legislature needs to make the selling of productive timber holdings for real estate illegal. It isn't just private property rights we are talking about here - Plum Creek's actions negatively affect almost every Montanan when they practice such land abuse. That land should be used for timber, wildlife, and fisheries.

Comment By concerned Montanan, 11-01-07

I agree backcountryhunter, one wonders how Sorensen can spew his rhetoric with all of that excrement in his mouth...

Comment By Jonathan Weber, 11-01-07

Backcountry hunter, your comment is a little simplistic. For starters, characterizing the beneficiaries of their actions as "rich out-of-state investors" is either ignorant or xenophobic. Plum Creek is a publicly traded company that is likely owned mostly by mutual funds and pension funds (maybe even yours!), just like any publicly traded company. You may not like how they run the company, which is fine, but just about anyone who owns anything in Montana is an "out of state investor" in somebody's view and that term is just a way of demonizing.

Further, I hardly think you'd find much (any?) support among Montanans for making the sale of timber lands illegal - on the contrary. If you live in the same state as I do people are generally very opposed to restrictions on what they can do with their land. If you're concerned about Plum Creek lands I would get involved with the many efforts (on the state level via taxation, on the county level via impact fees and zoning, on the community level via easements and other mechanisms) that actually have an impact on how those lands are managed and how the money flows. Those efforts make a difference. Rhetoric about phoney demons won't change a thing.

Comment By bearbait, 11-01-07

Plum Creek is in the land business. They ain't selling sno-cones on the corner in July. They bought all of Georgia Pacific's land in Oregon, and maybe on the West Coast. Most of the timberland that the megapulps own was payment by the US Govt. to the railroads for building the cross continental railroad grid that is now owned by just two companies: BNSF and UP. Two railroads control traffic west of the Mississippi, just as Plum Creek and Weyerhaeuser are the predominant timberland holders, and great friends of the Sierra Club, et al. The enviros used those Big Boys as a straw man. The Timber Barons. And then took out over 400 family owned sawmills using public timber and left the lumber markets to the very few remaining bigs and their private land timber harvests.

The Big Green Lobby made Plum Creek and the Mega Pulps what they are today. Don't talk bad about your children, if you are of the enviro bent. You created them, and gave them the lumber market on a silver platter. You had to know they would establish real estate divisions after the trees were gone. Your pension fund demands that they produce dividends. US law demands that they do right by share holders.

How many remember Clark Fork Logging, a sham company owned by most of the big mills in NW Montana to bid on USFS timber without competition, and after being the only bidder, the timber was divvied up between the participating mills? Kept competition out, and provided cheap wood to a lot of mills. Ever see a prosecution or someone go to jail? Martha Stewart was invested in the wrong business.

All that water under the bridge means nothing. The reality is that without the railroads and the Mining Act, there would be little private land in Montana today. So if you want a piece of the pie for your little retreat or second home or ranchette, you will be buying your parcel from a much larger parcel being subdivided. Plum Creek owns the means to growth in Montana and Washington. Oregon has them in the land use straight jacket, and maybe even more so after next week's election if Measure 49 passes.

I just don't get people who create the situation, and then complain about their own creation. You end public land logging and then crab about the private land owners logging and the intensity of it. Your no public land logging put the pressure on private land to service an ever growing national population!!! You did that!! And if the private land owner sells property to people who would put it to other use, you crab about that. What land have you provided for population expansion? The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Lands, ad nauseum, all are buying private land and then selling it for obscene profits to the Feds to "re-coup our costs." The Feds use off shore oil royalties to buy more land, and then they bitch that development is too close to their land and is a fire hazard. Quit buying land, dip wad!! You lying bastards keep putting land that was purchased from homesteaders by the USFS during the Great Depression into proposed Wilderness. Now how in the hell can a proved up homestead be "untrammeled by the hand of man?" The government owns too much land, and that is the problem in the West. And, they are poor neighbors with a lying transient work force and their management has no investment in the local community. They are mercenaries for the Civil Service, politicized when Clinton canned Chief Robertson and put the weak lackey JW Thomas in the job. And followed him with a wacked out biologist from another agency. Political pimps straight from the White House. Pombo fought that and was targeted and taken out like like a rabid dog. Now live with it.

If you think Plum Creek is the worst neighbor in Montana, you haven't seen enough junk yards, reservation housing, or ticky tacky subdivisions yet, pard. How good a neighbor was that asbestos insulation outfit in Libby? How good a neighbor is that Federal Arsonist outfit going by the name of US Forest Service. There is a neighbor that ought to scare the snot right out of a two year old's nose. How many cabins, homes, thousands of acres of private land have their runaway "let er burn" WFUs taken out in the last 5 years? When you think you have the worst neighbor in the world in someone who has an asset, with a proposed worth, who wants to protect and profit from it, as opposed to a government agency that gives zero value to land, and finds it more attractive and useful burned to a crisp, you need to figure out which collective farm you want to be an inmate on down the road.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 11-02-07

So bearbait, if I understand you correctly, it's the Sierra Club and other enviro groups who are responsible for the wholly unsustainable cut and run logging practices on public lands from the period of the 1970s to the early 1990s? After all, it was this 20-year, balls-to-the-walls logging frenzy that directly resulted in the downturn of national forest timber sales starting with the Spotted Owl Injunction in the early 90s.

That must mean it was the Sierra Club who was encouraging the Willamette National Forest to cut nearly 1 billion board feet of old growth trees (200,000 log trucks full) every single year during the decade of the 1980s?

And these same enviro groups were also responsible for all the billions of dollars in taxpayer money subsidizing roadbuilding projects on national forests during the same period? The same mega roadbuilding projects that have left us with over 440,000 miles of roads in our public forests (enough to circle the equator 18 times) and a maintenance backlog of nearly $10 billion today?

And the reason the Sierra Club and other enviros did this was so they could "take out over 400 family owned sawmills" and help their "friends" at Plum Creek Timber Co and Weyerhaeuser?

Of course, the icing on the cake must have been when the Sierra Club and other enviro groups lobbied so hard to get NAFTA enacted so that the vast expanses of cheap Canadian softwood and pulp would flow right across the US border, right?

You're right, the timber industry should bear no responsibility for what happened on public lands during the 1970s to early 1990s. Neither should the Forest Service nor the federal government nor the building industry nor the bankers nor the investors nor the developers nor the local elected officials who sat by cheerleading and watched it all happen. It's so clearly all the fault of the Sierra Club and other enviro groups...just like the California fires.

Comment By MT Wilderness Hunter, 11-02-07

Jonathan,

I think your comments were a little harsh towards backcountryhunter. And I say that not because we appear to share a similar name. I don't know the issue well enough to know if the state legislature could even make the sale of productive timber holdings for real estate illegal, but Plum Creek's desire to sell off large tracks of their timberlands (which were originally acquired through the Railroad Land Grant signed by President Lincoln (as in during the 1860s!) has quite a few people worried, including rural communities, loggers, conservationists, hunters and other outdoor recreationist, community leaders, fire departments and other emergency responders. That's a pretty diverse group that hardly is swayed by "phoney demons."

Looking for more information about this issue, I found this group of diverse citizens up in the Swan Valley organized under the name Northwest Connections. There website and a little info about their view of Plum Creek's desire to sell off their timberlands for trophy homes and subdivisions follows. Pretty remarkable that these Plum Creek lands were originally public lands that were acquired in the 1860s to help build the northern route of the transcontinental railroad and settle the west and now we sit back and let Plum Creek make a killing helping to spread sprawl. Hey Bearbait, looks like President Lincoln is to blame, eh? I don't even think the Sierra Club was around in the 1860s!

http://www.northwestconnections.org/

"The overriding conservation issue in the Swan Valley at present is the divestment of Plum Creek "Higher and Better Use" lands. As lands are converted from working forest lands with public access to private residential developments many aspects of our landscape and our community are threatened. Wildlife habitats become further fragmented, wildfire becomes more difficult and expensive to suppress, services are expanded which drive up costs and detract from the rural character of the valley, and opportunities for hunting and fishing vanish."

Comment By Jonathan Weber, 11-02-07

MT Wilderness Hunter, you're probably right that my tone was too harsh, and for that I apologize. I just find the whole "out of state" thing to be irrelevant and even offensive. Pride of place is fine and a good thing, but not when it translates into blaming "outsiders" for ruining what's "mine." After all, almost any white person's claim to land in this country dates, at best, from the time when it was taken from the Indians, and I have never heard anyone in any state other than Montana attribute things they don't like to people from "out of state." To me that just muddies the issue.

I do not disagree at all that the disposition of Plum Creek lands is a major issue for Montana, and the worries about how it will change things are certainly legit. I just think that community and political action is the way to address those concerns. To simply say, "there outta be a law!" doesn't get us anywhere.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-02-07

Montana is 'for sale' and New West is right in the middle of promoting that with its constant featuring of the Cabelas Trophy Properties advertisement. The monied individuals capable of buying these properties tend not to come from Montana roots or heritage. See: http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/inthefield/trophy_properties/indexes/use_sale/montana/mt_int_index.jsp?ctpPage=saleMontana

and

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/inthefield/trophy_properties/home/ctp_home.jsp;jsessionid=UNQBYSM1OWTVRLAQBBKSCN3MCAEFMIWE?cm_ven=redirect&cm_cat=domain&cm_pla=d&cm_ite=cabelastrophyproperties.com&_requestid=51324

FWP is trying to work with and educate these new 'immigrants' but, in my opinion, is have limited success. Ted Turner is one of those demons that Jonathan refers to.

Comment By bearbait, 11-02-07

First, all the land west of the Mississippi was bought from France whose claim would have dubious origin, or taken from Britain, Russia and Mexico, some won in the Mexican War and the rest just usurped. It was all government land to begin with. It was disposed of by the government, by land grants for roads and railroads, for homesteads, for mining, for timber claims, for the national good. That is beyond doubt, and the good is well documented, and just the mineral discoveries were crucial to our security and prosperity for the last 150 years. Any USFS land east of the Mississippi has been purchased in the last 100 years. When it became apparent that homesteading on the desert was a bust (rain follows the plow!), and the likes of S.A.D. Puter were in cahoots with US Senators and the Timber Barons to acquire pubic lands by shill claims (hiring school teachers to live on them in summer, prove up and then buy from the school teacher) the US Govt moved to end homesteading and created the National Forests as a timber reserve as it was apparent the Timber Barons were on a cut and run plan, which abandoned cutover land and it became a county burden after taxes were not paid for a given time. The whole issue with public forests was to provide stability to the local communities, timber revenue sharing instead of property taxes or payments in lieu of property taxes by the Feds. In the same vein, gypsy grazing was leading to the ruin of the Federal pasturage, and the Taylor Grazing Act and other came into being to protect local grazers, the resource, and be a sustainable economic force. The current management plan has no sustainability to it for either the local communities or the forest. Burned to a crisp is not sustainable and kills old growth just as efficiently as a chain saw. The difference is that the fires cost money to contain, and logging produced money, that in turn financed road maintenance, trails, campgrounds, and silvaculture. The current economic model for Public Land management is bankrupt, and does not work. After paying for our oil and human rights incursions in the world, we won't have money to pay for Public Land management for a long time. The model that worked was purposefully destroyed, and no adequate substitute has been offered or created.

I don't think the Willamette ever sold a Billion board feet in any one year. I do know that the Willametter has a million acres, and that site is probably only capable of growing a half billion board feet per year unmanaged. And, at this time, it is unmanaged, growing trees like mad, and will become a fuel laden conflagration site sooner than later, and that will take out the remaining old growth just like it has along the transition zone from the Mt. Washington Wilderness to the Mt. Hood NF past the Warms Springs IR.

If cutting a billion feet a year is a bad deal, so is not cutting any at all. The socio-economic issues locally have been great, and across the whole of Oregon, the ability to fund schools and produce a proud K-12 education has been dealt a terrible blow over the last 20 years. A third of Oregon is timberland, and only a third of that, in private hands, is producing income. The rest is a fire liability of magnitude, and rapidly becoming off limits to most of the public. We have mega dope plantations on every National Forest and on BLM lands, even on the High Desert, run by the Mexican drug cartel. The one they found this year near McDermitt, Nevada, in Oregon, had the dope growers living in a cave and killing big horn sheep for food. The law enforcement for that area comes from 150 miles away, which means the Feds have lost control of the criminal use of that area just due to time, distance and man power.

All those roads were access for management, and all could be closed by a simple gate. The miles are across 195 million acres outside of roadless areas and wilderness. To not maintain them is criminal and an affront to the environment. The issue is that Big Green lobbies against the money to take care of roads, and most in Congress don't understand that Wilderness trails have to be maintained by hand, with no chain saws, which makes the whole process more costly and less efficient. And after last weeks winds in the High Cascades, there will be hundreds of miles of blocked trails. Some elk camps are just now getting their livestock out a week after the hunt ending.

Under the logging model, roads were built using the road credits program which was falsely painted as a subsidy to Big Timber and that falsehood continues to be rotely repeated today. The US Govt owned the land the roads were built on and wanted them built to last. In the 1960's, the DOT road standards were introduced, and roads had to be built to DOT standards, which was the balanced (all excavation placed, not side cast, in a compacted fill) full bench road with a foot of crushed rock, mostly 1" minus on the running surface. The road credit was the Govt estimate of the road cost, and that was how much timber, at your bid price, you got for building the road. It cost the purchaser to build the road, and the road credit reduced or eliminated that cost. In a competitive bid, the timber value was not reduced by the road cost. The road credits were considered a part of the sale revenue, and thus 25% of the road cost was paid to the county the timber was removed from. That money supported schools, local roads, and local government. The Big Green painted that as a subsidy, got it stopped, and since then all roads are built to Govt standards at the purchaser's cost, and the county gets no revenue from the road building. Also, the value of the timber removed is less because the timber bidding reflects the cost of building the road. It was a lose, lose deal for local government, and that revenue has not been replaced by a Congress dominated by Eastern representation and zealots from the West who think that they are killing a subsidy. The stupidity of our Congress, collectively and individually, sometimes just amazes me. The end of road credits effectively ended the reconstruction maintenance of the forest's mainline roads, and turned those projects into line item budget issues to be paid for by Congress, which does not have the money. Shoot yourself in the foot and blame it on the gun.

I will stand by my belief that Big Green is the beneficiary of Corporate giving, with a goal in mind. The goal of Big Timber, the Megapulps, is and was to keep all public timber out of the market place. It is competition. Not unlike the one newspaper in every city lack of competition is service and supported by Congress, although it is an obvious monopoly that acts like a monopoly in ruthlessly chasing off competition. Trusts and Foundations can by led by people who express with the foundation's money opinion and influence that is far from the ideals of their creators, and I don't have to go further than the Sun Oil money fueling the Pew Trust to point that out.

The Weyerhaeuser family money is expressed in their large position in Potlach. The stockholders there sued the Board a few years back because even though the company was losing money every year, the preferred stock was being paid big dividends. No public timber competition has made Potlach more competitive in the last decade. I would guess they still make their private donations to the environmental groups to keep those profits coming.

All fires, including California, are a result of a huge fuel buildup that has never been a part of the environment since humans came with cultural fire thousands of years ago. Recently, there have been comparisions of Northern Mexico and Southern California in fire frequency and intensity. The belief is that Mexico has more frequent, small fires, and that is good. The issue is that Mexico does not have the Green Lobby trying to manage private and public lands to their own ideals. I don't think there are Federales running down people for having a barbeque or a lawn mower polluting the air, nor do they restrict fire days due to air quality reports. They also don't have water anymore since we captured the Colorada and moved it to Las Vegas and LA, and so the population density is not as great. I would also believe that they still are pretty much a nation of Indians, who have retained their cultural fire regimes to a much greater extent that the US...But, if the researchers go further south in Mexico, to the Durango area, they will find that vast ponderosa pine forests have been logged for over 100 years with modern industrial logging. There were logging railroads in that end of the world a hundred years ago. They still log pine in that end of the world. But Mexico now gets a whole lot of lumber from Canada, by help of NAFTA, because it can cross the US without a whole lot of border issues. They like SPF KD lumber for construction, and are buying more all the time. Comparing the hyper regulated environment of Southern California with Northern Mexico is an apples and oranges deal, and statistically meaningless. Southern California is most likely regulated to maximize the incidence and intensity of fire, not in that they want fire, but want an environment of heavy fuels because that is aesthetically desireable. Hence the fuels protections. Another you can't get there from here deal that we seem to like so well in the US.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 11-02-07

Bear Bait, I'm trying to track down the information I had on hand at one time regarding the Willamette's timber sale program, but haven't been able to find the document that contained information about the 1 billion board feet a year logged during the decade of the 1980s. If memory serves, it was in a book at logging in the PNW.

However, I was able to find this similar information contained in "A Brief History of the Willamette National Forest" that's found on the Willamette Natoinal Forest's website.

"The Willamette’s timber sales continued at about 750 MMBF per year through the 70’s, however, the price bid per thousand increased dramatically. This price speculation led to timber sale defaults and sale buy-backs in the early 1980’s. The volume not cut in the early 80’s was resold in the latter half of the decade. The "section 318" bill passed by Congress increased the volume sold on the Willamette in 1990 to nearly 1 billion board feet of timber."

Regardless, I believe my point about the wholly unsustainable cut and run logging practices on public lands from the period of the 1970s to the early 1990s holds true.

Comment By geoffb, 11-02-07

I heard Jerry Sorenson's presentation and the whole residential/wilderness interface is something I have a hard time getting my head around. It turns a lot of profit for some, but is the antithesis of sound community planning. It encourages more, longer trips by cars and trucks. It encourages greater commitment of resources to protect residential property in the event wildfire. It permits some to enjoy a disproportionate consumptive share of our remaining wildplaces. I will gladly acnowledge that some of these and other impacts [which I do not regard as positive] can be and are mitigated in many instances, but it still does not rest easy with me.

Now, before the socialist label gets tacked on me, let me say that I support private property and its beneficial and productive use by its owners. At the same time, I eagerly support mindful, aware consideration of the true costs and who bears them in this kind of development. Who pays? Who benefits? These are questions that sometimes have a broader implication than is given in the discussion. That is one of the reasons I credit New West for hosting a conference that seeks to broaden the conversation. Look at these postings! We are adding information and depth to the discussion!

And since Jerry Sorenson saw fit to quote Bob Dylan, allow me the same opportunity:

"So when you see your neighbor carryin' somethin'
Help him with his load,
And don't go mistaking Paradise
For that home across the road."
--The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest

Comment By bearbait, 11-02-07

Matthew: A whole lot of things skewed timber sales and logging in the 60's and 70's on the Willamette NF. The Columbus Day storm in 1962 blew down a goodly portion of the low elevation old growth on both public and private lands. There is a force majeur clause in contracts that allows forwarding the contract end dates of contracted timber for emergency salvage, and that put a lot of contracted timber ahead into the 70's for cutting. Then there was a big fire on the Smith River called the Oxbow fire, and if you bought fire salvage, you got to move an equal volume of Federal contracted timber ahead for harvest. All the while Georgia Pacific was selling logs to pay for acquisitions of Coos Bay Lumber, Booth-Kelly and other buyouts. The Federal timber sale program continued, and there was timber enough for all. And then G-P was cut out, and all the wind and fire and flood of '64 salvage had been cut, and suddenly the installed capacity to cut was greater than the available wood, and then the Carter inflation hit, Reagan was elected and the bottom had fallen out of the market, and there were big defaults on timber sales. Counties and local governments were low on money as no timber was being cut, and times were tough. I remember going in to a county DA's office, and I told him that I had a State sale, no domestic market for the logs, and there was a US Constitutional issue about States not allowing export of State timber, and that being in conflict with the Congress regulating trade between the Nations, the Indian Tribes, and the States. I wanted to export, and he was the law officer who could stop me, and I asked his intentions. He told me he had no money to run the jail, though his office was State funded, he had two big murder trials to prosecute, and 65% of the revenue from my State sale would go to his county only when the timber was cut. If I was proposing to cut the timber, I should, and if the logs went across the river to Washington there was no jurisdiction of his over there. And do it soon, so that the county could receive the income. I did. I did not have to default and go broke. That was the state of things in 1980.

So, under Pres Reagan the economy improved, things started moving again, and the Feds put all their defaulted timber back on the market, and it was bid higher than before. Plus, they also put up their annual plan volume as well. I can see how the Willamette and the Umpqua could have hit a billion feet in a year under that scenario. The volume might be heavy in one year, but over time, the annual planned cut was not exceded. I can believe the "cut" on the Willamette could have been a billion feet in one year. Sales have 3 or more years for completion. The "sell" was never a billion board feet in any one year over time. It is about averages. I will buy the 750 million for the whole of the Willamette NF as a timber sale goal, but I have doubts that was ever met on more than one year in 10.

But, and nothing counts before "but", since about 1994, the Feds have not hit a half billion on all the National Forests and BLM lands in Oregon and Washington. And therein lies the rub. The very best timber growing land in the world is held hostage to preservation and no management, while all too much of it burns every year. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of planted trees, 20 to 50 years old, on Federal ground that need heavy thinning, which would produce the logs the market uses today, small second growth. But it appears that having that fiber burn is now preferable to logging it. That is just dandy, as long as the fire never leaves Federal lands, and it burns on days when air and wind conditions would allow supervised burning, and the smoke would not impact urban areas. I know that is impossible, but impossible conditions are asked of industry all too often, and they are criticized if they cannot perform. The devolution of the USFS timber sale program has not had a positive effect on National Forests. There is a lot more wood fiber on the ground, perhaps more per acre over the whole than ever. More downed timber, more standing dead timber, and more living timber. Too much fuel, and it is destined to burn. Some of us just can't fathom why burning up timber, and importing our lumber makes sense to so many.

Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-03-07

Bearbait is right on the history. He was there. As for PC, Weyco and the greens playing in to all this, right again. Some of us remember Trout Unlimited's litigation against PC and opposition to its habitat conservation plan.
Half the crux of all that was PC was sitting on zillions worth of standing timber, a balance-sheet asset. That asset was risked by the possibility of a ruling saying No Cuttee, or an uber-restrictive HCP. Now, when you have an asset at risk, the smart option is to get rid of the asset to limit the exposure to your other assets.
The other half of this crux is the shutdown of USFS harvest and the elimination of PC Weyco Potty's competition. When you get rid of competition, especially competitive supplies, what happens to the value of your assets? Zooooooom! Up They GOOOOOOO.
Put these two together. Now you have assets at risk, but those assets are REALLY valuable now. What do you do? Liquidate those assets and go buy safer assets someplace else. Ergo, PC buying up Maine and Oregon. And most of the Southeast.
They moved their assets away from the risk environment.
All I can say is I doubt very much the useful idiots understand how stupid they really are. For all the rants I hear about Evil Corporate America from environmentalists, it seems to me that Evil Corporate America has, sho nuff, benefited the most.
Way to go, chumps.

Comment By Matthew Koehler, 11-03-07

You're right Dave. Environmentalists are so clearly responsible for the rise of the multi-national corporate powers and their domination over the masses in this country and around the world. You know, the more I think about it, us enviros are also clearly responsible for the war on Iraq and any other future wars or conflicts that are based on the interests of a handful of multi-national corporations. And here I just thought enviros were responsible for wildfires! Sure I'm glad I'll be in the Wilderness the next four days hunting elk...it will give me lots of time to ponder the awesome power us enviros really do have.

Comment By Planman, 11-04-07

A lot of what you guys are talking about (the role of USFS policies, timber companies, enviros, etc.) is over my head, but I do know that a lot of people dream of having a home or cabin in a quiet, forested place where they can hunt or fish away from the masses. In my mind the conversion of historic timberlands to real estate brings both good and bad consequences. Even though the timber industry, mining and agriculture are now less prominent players in our economy, everyone in western MT has work and most are able to carry out their own version of American dream. Wages are rising fast and I think opportunity is there for those who want it. On the down side, there is less access to once open lands, there is a greater risk (and costs) of fire, more human/wildllife conflicts and our communities are changing and that scares people. But times change, and our local governments who make land use decisions do a pretty thorough job of gauging the potential impacts of forested subdivisions and mitigating the impacts. I agree with Weber that the best way to deal with this is to get in the game and take part in the process instead of jeering the players from the stands.

Comment By Hal Herring, 11-04-07

Once again, and in all seriousness, my hat is off to the people commenting here, whether I completely agree with them or not. I am learning alot, and I appreciate it.

Now, for my small contribution. Please take a look at the role of land trusts- the Nature Conservancy, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and dozens of others, in trying to preserve open space, habitat and public access to as much of these REIT lands as possible. It has been a huge struggle, with some major successes from Maine to Washington, Alabama to Tennessee and Montana. And it has largelly been undertaken under the radar of all of the beneficiaries- the outdoorspeople of the US.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2002/2002-08-27-07.asp

http://www.nature.org/magazine/autumn2006/forests/

http://www.nature.org/pressroom/ip/press/forests.html

I do not care what your take is on the the Nature Conservancy or any other land trust- one must look at what is being accomplished and add that into the judgement. Look particularly at the work being done to acquire lands that were in danger of being sold for development around the Clearwater Game Range in Montana's Blackfoot River Corridor, or at the tens of thousands of acres bought in Tennessee that were slated for development and now will be part of the state's public hunting lands.

The story of this race against time to preserve critical habitat and public access is almost unknown- incredibly so, because this is the one place where citizens can have an effect and a say in this transition, which has been called the "largest transfer of lands since the Louisiana Purchase."


Read up on as many of these land trust efforts as you can, and then compare the outcomes to those where strictly private interests prevailed: for just a couple examlples: the St. Joe Paper Company lands in north Florida, where 1.1 million acres of the last wild land in Florida will come under development, with a proposed new airport and interstate highway systems, built at the public's expense, to service the new communities. Look at the purchases made by Roxanne Quimby of Burt's Bees in Maine, which, while they may eventually be some kind of new National Park, will never again be open to hunting, snowmobiling, wandering freely, etc by the public.

The Rocky Mt Elk Foundation has been a major player in many these efforts to acquire the paper company lands in the most critical hunting and winter range areas, and nobody seems to know about it. In fact, just as all this REIT land selling explodes, the Elk Foundation and other trusts like it are suffering from severe lack of funding (Wal-Mart has been and continues to be, a great help in general, with its Acres for America Program).

People seem to want to gripe about it, drink another beer, and say' it's all gone to hell" when in reality, this "crisis" (or profit opportunity, or other opportunity) is producing some - a very few- excellent outcomes for public access and wildlife. Every one of these positive outcomes is hard-won. There could be a lot more, if more citizens would just step up and get involved in the land trusts.
It ain't going to hang fire. It will be gone, and we will be living in whatever the result is. This is the last chance to have a say in the matter, and it has a direct bearing on whether the outdoors and the hunting and fihsing experiences that we have will be available to our children...which has a direct bearing on whether there will be a demographic out there to speak for conservation- who even know what is at stake, out beyond the city lights- in the years to come.

Hal

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-04-07

"Hal" lelujah big guy. Great comment as you deftly deliver the velvet boot between the checks.

Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-04-07

Boot between the cheeks? Not hardly, Craig.
Morally and ethically, I cannot support land trusts. On moral grounds, it is the height of arrogance to say that land trusts today will well-serve society tomorrow. We can't know that.
Say the REITs were a hundred years old, as are the institutions of land trusts, including the tax breaks. What would the landscape look like today? Would all those ranches be ranching, or would they be weed patches because there were too many cows on the market? What would land prices be today in the valley bottoms? More affordable or less?
So now the idea is "community land trusts" in the name of "affordable housing." What you find is a waiting list. That screams out that there is more demand for housing than 1. land for it; and 2. wages to pay the price of housing. Is zoning to blame?
I think of the tenements in New York. That was a functional means of putting bodies where they needed to be. Aspects of it certainly stank, but tenements are not necessarily forever for either individuals or the community. People and money flow around and adapt. Start putting in funny rules that impede the flow of money and people, and things get seriously screwed up to the point where nobody can understand them.
People are most rational with their own money. Period. When it comes to governmental programs, as an example I'd like to argue that for a long time, when it was hunter money going to hunter programs, the policies were pretty darn close to rational. It's only when other people's money, or other people trying to nab hunter dollars, or "nonconsumptive wildlife publics" jump into the picture that wildlife policies become irrational.
Let's consider public hunting. As a "free" resource, even with declining hunter numbers, it has become a less-than-optimal experience. Everyone gripes about it, and I'll say the block program, which has hunters paying for their access, is a step in the right direction.
The fact is that elk move onto private ground and that causes problems, right? But those trophy property owners bought that ground for their private gain. Look at Ted Turner. Ten thousand bucks a head. The trophy people are, in some cases, playing the same game, or simply feel that the block-management incentive, or pay to hunt, is worth less than the perceived value of herds in the sunset out the great room window with admiring guests showering platitudes.
Is that ethical? Is Tedster more or less ethical than Trophy Tom? Depends on your values....
And that leads me to the ethics side. Who is to say the qualifications list for a CLT is pure as snow as opposed to politically driven? Who is to say that Hal and other land-trust supporters are not fully aware that nailing the US taxpayer in general for federal millions for the Blackfoot Challenge et al results in a concentrated benefit for a relative impacted few while the ignorant at large actually fork over the dough, which by objective means might have been better spent either by, or on behalf of, the payees?
Robbing clueless Peter in Podunk to benefit savvy Howie in Humptulips is the reason this country seems to be going nuts. Yet for players in the dirty game, their decisions appear perfectly rational, thanks to screwed-up reward scenarioes.
I've been watching the money game in politics for some time, and feel that the process is so loaded, where ten cents of fancy lobbying gets you a hundred in benefits, that without some major readjustment in people's attitudes toward the role of government, and especially the sanctioned robbery of the many by the lobbying special interests, we are toast.
More than anything, we owe future generations a legacy of rational choices. We are failing.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-04-07

Dave, the 'boot' I'm referring to is the one that motivates people to get off their duffs, stop whining, and get involved. Don't like REIT's, fine. No problem. RMEF is not high on my list these days. Let our heritage disappear in the rear view mirror, No!!!! I too mentioned Turner as one of Jonathan's demons. He is a case study in how things will turn out by the whining hand wringers whose bottoms are more calloused than their hands.

Comment By Hal Herring, 11-04-07

There is an ocean of troubles with land trusts - the concept is in constant evolution, and forever in danger of being corrupted- as Dave can point out, TNC had much trouble in this aspect, not too long ago-but conservation easements remain a willing buyer-willing seller entity.

I do not understand Dave's idea that land trusts impede the flow of people and money. Ever priced a piece of land abutting a big property under conservation easement? It seems more likely that the save-nothing free-for-all that Dave seems to advocate would be more likely to infringe on people's rights to enjoy their property and its chance to increase in value. But that's an issue for another day- I have never liked zoning, or anybody telling anybody else what to do with their property, but I also would not endure, for one second, somebody telling me that I could not sell or place an easement on my land if I wanted to.

I just think that land trusts, and the community involvement they entail, are the only way, right now, to make the best of a rapidly changing situation, especially regarding the REITS and TIMOS that are shuffling all this land.

Projected population of US in 2040- 600 million. That does cause some reflection on the idea of conservation and wildlife, doesn't it?

Comment By Hal Herring, 11-04-07

And Dave, I don't want to be a pig. But I hunt almost all public land or Block Management, and my hunting in the past twenty years has been fantastic. When I hunted the supposedly overcrowded Bitterroots, or the West Big Hole, same thing, plenty of game, plenty of room for a good hiker, better then average chances even close to the roads, for a meat deer or elk. I got shafted hard on the antelope tags this year, true, but I've got four deer tags and an either sex elk, and expect to fill them all. The only people I know who are complaining about the public hunting in Montana-and this is just those that I know personally- are people who don't hunt very much or very hard. Whoops- I take that back-I know one hardcore mule deer hunter who tells me the management for big muleys in easern MT is seriously out of whack, and he knows as much about the subject as anybody anywhere, so I have to take his word for it.

My point? Sometimes you have to act to try to save the things you love. You have to act, not just according to strict ideology, although that is always part of it, but according to what needs to be done, and what will best accomplish the goal.
People railed against regulations to protect the wildlife in 1900. The governor of Wyoming and western movie star Wallace Berry rode around with Winchesters to fight the establishment of Grand Teton National Park. The list goes on forever, of people who objected, sometimes quite rightly, to preserving this or that. Will it be moral, in 2040, to keep Yellowstone National Park intact, when most probably there will be so many landless citizens who could live there? I read a wonderful story in the New Yorker about a Hutu man visiting Adirondack National Park, after the slaughters in Rwanda. Why he asked, could the Hutus not be resettled there, in those beautiful mountains that no one was using?

It is okay to be a bystander, observe the world, and not lament the losses. But action is sometimes the right response, too. If you carefully weigh each response on the ideological meter, on what may be moral (what is moral and legal now has to be the first consideration) in some time that noone can foresee, you commit yourself to inaction, and in the case of these land ownership transitions, you accept that the land once open to public use will be purchased by highest bidder, and developed or kept for strict private use. With a population of 600 million, I don't think you have to worry about empty weed patches. You will see full development of some sort.
And maybe that is best, in some people's view.

But in other's view, it will be sad, and a great loss of something that might have been saved, if only in parts. That is why some people are interested in land trusts, and why some people work so hard to try and protect some of these lands, whether or not it benefits clueless Peter in Podunk -which it might, if he ever gets a clue and comes out west to take a walk and see what the world looked like one day, so long ago, before everything else was under concrete and zoysia. At least the option will still be there for him.

I'm right there in agreement with you on one thing. The country is going nuts.










Hal

Comment By Dave Skinner, 11-04-07

Like I'm not bothered by all the trophy stuff? Turns me inside out, it does. My heart bleeds almost as much as yours does, Hal.
And I will admit I don't hunt very hard. I don't have time, maybe that's because the emotive side of hunting hasn't been that big of a deal for me. Nor are the politics of meat. I just want a slab or two of deer when the forage is other than pine needles or sage.
There are a lot of others like me, we can't hunt as hard as we would otherwise like. But making hunting hard all the time does a lot to eliminate the hunter community that Hunters with a capital H need in the larger political context.
Those who hunt hard have my respect. Seeing a rack in the back of a pickup makes me all fuzzy and happy. Just don't snob me out of my less-perfect ways of filling the icebox.
As for CE's...I'm not about to say someone should not do one, it's not my right, but I resent that I have to pay for it through the back door. A more honest way to set aside lands is through sinking inheritance trusts or joint tenancies in common.
I was down in Oregon visiting with a consulting ecologist that was heading over to Sumner Lake or some such to do an assessment of a proposed CE on a big ranch.
So we yapped about it, and I basically told him "If you hate your kids, put the land in a conservation easement." About a month later, he calls me and says, "Dave, you were right. The rancher hates his worthless kids and doesn't want them to turn the ranch into ranchettes."
Never mind that inheritance taxes go a long way toward forcing the issue of land use changes. Corporations don't directly pay inheritance tax. Hmmmm.

Comment By Craig Moore, 11-05-07

Last night I BBQ'd some antelope that I harvested a couple of weeks ago. Dave, this animal was fat from eating uncut grain. Delicious!!!!

Here's to tight lines and one shot kills. May we manage the environment, the resources, and the animals to continue the tradition of Fins, Feathers, Fur, Family, Friends, and Fun!

Comment By Dean, 11-07-07

Plum Creek hypocrisy.Do you know they were a "cooperator" on the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study for several years? I heard all their 'lip service' for elk and elk habitat over and over like a broken record when I was on it as well. Then the field trip from Big Sky divide to Jack Creek. Pristine,beautiful elk range. They(Plum Creek) had cutters in there then cutting trees for the road. I didn't believe them then and I was right. So they clear-cut the entire elk range and roaded it and started before the recommendations were finalized.The they sold all the clear-cut elk range for subdivision in Sunlight Basin. Who to? The owner of the Yellowstone Club in the Gallatin from California. I could hear the song & dance on the field trip from Plum Creek" we will apply the recommendations from the study". I was outspoken and asked how they intend to do that. No one appreciated my questions. Now look what we have? Has anyone ever heard of the 7 year cooperative study for 1.5 million dollars? Are the recommendations being applied today? Have they ever? All apart of Montana research history in Montana."publish or perish". Nothing ever applied to the ground.Please look up the final publication and PLUM CREEK WAS A MAJOR PLAYER.....PLUM CREEK HYPOCRACY!! Cut sell and run!

Comment By Jon, 11-08-07

Too much good MT beer to email any wisdom. Enjoyed the dialogue; We have it quite well here in our state; I will not wake up in Darfur, Iraq, LA, Chicago or even Missoula tomorrow so I feel well & privileged. Keep participating all & thank you newwest for your great forum! Two weeks to go to get my elk; if not may get one of the 80 deer I am feeding!

Comment By Amanda Eggert, 11-19-07

A brief run-down: I'm a journalism student at UM working on a story for a Public Affairs Reporting Class about the sale and development of Plum Creek land in western MT.

I'm trying to get a clear idea about the pros and cons of the issue. I've already spoken to a representative from Plum Creek and a couple county commissioners.

If you have an informed opionion about said develoipment, I'd love to get some input from you.

You can email me at with a phone number and a good time to call. I'd be most appreciative.

Comment By Dean, 11-22-07

Amanda good luck on your article. I think you can make a good article just out of the Sunlight Basin epic east of Jack Creek near Ennis.That WAS a beautiful area and great elk habitat area. Plum Creek was a cooperator on the Montana cooperative Elk Logging Study. Before the ink was dry on the final report they did masive clearcuts and roading didn't follow any recommendation then sold the area off for subdivision to a wealthy California developer.The least they could have done would be to donate the land to the Forest Service and allow the timber to recover. The land at least would be in public ownership. Now a piece of Montana gone and destroyed forever thanks to Plum Creek. By talking to them only you will get a one sided version.Copies of the elk/Studies are there in Missoula USFS or library. Good Luck.

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/plum_creeks_risky_businesses/C8/L8/