Oregon; State control = sale of public lands

Interested in what some of you Oregon guys know of, or think of, the sale of this state forest in Oregon. It is the classic example of the strategy that the Privateers are employing to reach their goal of ridding the public of their lands.

States are Constitutionally mandated to manage their lands for the school systems. When they cannot manage profitably, they are required to rid the unprofitable lands. That is the case in this Oregon example.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/12/elliott_state_forest_sale_woul.html

As the serial litigators move their target from the Feds, to the states (if the states ever did get control), the states cannot fight endless litigation that is sure to follow. End result - sell the lands, exactly what the promoters of the "divestiture movement" are hoping for.

If the divestiture crowd was serious about land management improvements, they would advocate for eliminating the abuses that are used to tie up land management. But they are not advocating such change, as that would destroy their current hope that the states get control and will have to sell them. If you stated goal is to eliminate public land, you don't want reform to the abuses, rather you want abuse to continue increasing the frustration and make the states be the bad guys who sell the public lands.

This issue will probably be the biggest issue of my adult hunting life. And unfortunately, we have many fringe politicians in many states who are taking marching orders from groups promoting this scheme.

Sorry to see Oregon have to make these decisions due to the serial litigators. Even more sorry to see the divestiture crowd working behind the scenes to screw us out of the public lands.

And if we think land management is difficult now, wait until the entire inter-mountain west is under ESA protections due to listing of the sage grouse. Coming soon to a state legislature near you - selling your public lands.

That is really bad news! I hadn't even heard any mention of it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention from out in Montana Randy! I wish we had a knowledgable advocate for hunters and hunting out here but we really don't.

To start with, I am very opposed to letting any more land get tied up in corporate timberland. Every year they lock us out of more and more land and I do not see that trend ending. In addition the way the private timber land is currently managed is far from ideal from a game producing stand point. Given the planting strategies being used, damage hunts and heavy use of herbicide logging is no longer a boon for hunters. Secondly there is essentially no logging taking place on the Nation Forest Land that I am surrounded by farther north. The spotted owl tied that all up in the early 90's and put and end to some of the best blacktail and Roosevelt hunting ever known to man so I see no benefit of the feds taking control. My guess is if one of the environmental groups takes control they will either end hunting or greatly reduce hunting opportunity. I would love to see the ODFW take control and manage the land for hunting opportunity but given the huge budget shortfall we are currently facing that is next to impossible in my personal opinion. We will be lucky to have wildlife biologists to even manage the hunts we currently have let alone take on managing a huge tract of land.

I don't see how we can win other than to put an end to the constant litigation that has tied the state forestries hands down there. That or change the law requiring state forest's to turn a profit every year to fund schools. Not sure either of those are even possible??

Any advice on how we could approach this situation and end up with a win for hunters Randy?

Randy, I am 65 years old and have been hunting since I could walk. I can remember my father saying as I was growing up that the day will come that hunting will be a rich mans sport.

So from reading the article it looked like the land was generating $5mil before the ecoterrorists found a bird no one has ever heard of to litigate the state to death.
So now they sell out to friends of politicians and the residents lose access?

One of the selling points that people who support eliminating public land like to use is that transfer will end the use of the ESA on those lands.

Apparently, the serial litigants didn't get the memo.

The State is hamstung by the requirement to generate income from it and the resultant lawsuits used to prevent that from happening. The "management by lawsuit" environment we now live has doomed that piece of land and saddled the rural communities of the East side with mounting school funding problems that used to be subsidized with logging.
The pendulum swings too far in both directions before it comes to rest in the middle. I'm afraid I'll be long dead before that happens.

The litigants will point their fingers at the state breaking the law.

The state will point their fingers at the litigants and the law requiring them to profit from the land. Indirect profits to the state, such as those from recreation are hard to quantify when it comes to individual parcels, and so aren't included.

The privatization proponents will point their fingers at anybody other than them in control of the land.

Those who use the land for recreation will point their fingers at the law, the litigants,the state, the privatization-proponents, and eventually, a "No Trespassing" sign.

The fact that these serial litigants continue to win means the only way things change is through changing the law or through legislatively passed loopholes and exclusions. The former will be incredibly difficult, as the ESA (or something like it) is important, regardless of how it may be misused in litigation. The latter is its own slippery slope, and requires more "compromise" (see: robbing Peter to pay Paul).

For now it seems the only feasible solution regarding serial litigation is to keep public lands in the hands of those who can at least afford to fight it - The Federal Government. Though, there are a hell of a lot more reasons other than the ability to fight litigation, for public lands to remain an American Public Trust and not the property of individual states.

WapitiBob said:

The State is hamstung by the requirement to generate income from it and the resultant lawsuits used to prevent that from happening. The "management by lawsuit" environment we now live has doomed that piece of land and saddled the rural communities of the East side with mounting school funding problems that used to be subsidized with logging.
The pendulum swings too far in both directions before it comes to rest in the middle. I'm afraid I'll be long dead before that happens.

Click to expand...

Sad thing... the pendulum will not return it's swing if/when our public lands fall into the private person's grip.

I just got word that they state has shelved the selling option for the time being. I'm hoping to get some better details.

Joe, check your PMs.

I was interested to read about this sale as I worked at this state forest while at OSU. It a great place and really hope it's not the start of changes that makes hunting a rich mans sport.

Ive been down in there doing some westside rosie hunting.Looks like a fair amount of timber is ready for harvesting but it seems as though timber sales have been almost non existant on the west side of the cascades and coast range probly due to the spotted owl deal making it hard to get logging reintroduced..If it goes to a private buyer you know they will log it immediatly..and gate it closed,,or turn it into a permit thing like wayerhouser did..Its a shame to see it sold posibly,,,just log some of it for revinue an let the state keep it.thats what i think should be done.

Surprised the three Democrats on the state land board would vote for the sale. HMMMMM .