Call to action - Oregon Elliott State Forest

Southern Elk · Feb 13, 2017

Some of you may have already seen this. The Oregon state land boards meets tomorrow to decide yes or no on the sale of the 92,000 acre Elliott State Forest. BHA is asking everyone to go to this link and send an email. This is yet another example of what can happen to state owned land.

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/8

Big Fin · Feb 13, 2017

If anyone doubts what the future of public lands looks like under the scenario of "State Transfer," Elliot State Forest is the crystal ball. Thanks for sharing that link.

James Riley · Feb 13, 2017

That's about 144 square miles for those not familiar with acres. Not saying smaller amounts are okay, just letting folks know that the 99% won't be getting in on this action. Well, maybe some trickle down jobs when the rape starts.

dan.kirkpatrick · Feb 13, 2017

e-mail sent,thanks for posting this.

elkduds · Feb 13, 2017

Email sent, thank you for the heads-up.

dan.kirkpatrick · Feb 14, 2017

well,it got voted to sell,2 to 1 with governer kate brown opposing it,but she got it hung up a bit and proposed a "possible public buy out"the only 1 bidder bid only 220 million for the whole thing,,i wonder if rmef and others could band together for a bid to keep it open to the public?i would be happy to be a life member if that could happen.theres a lot of timber there that's ready for harvest,,220 million seems very low for such a huge amount of timber?if say 20 million a year in logging revenues was to happen to pay for it,i could see it paid for in only 11 years,and then it would be paid for!!its very doable in my opinion,lets hear some input on this...Thank you governer kate brown for voting it down and proposing a public buy out...SHAME on you DENNIS RICHARDSON,and the treasurer for voting to sell.

Southern Elk · Feb 15, 2017

Such a shame. This is what can happen if the states get federal land.

Nameless Range · Feb 15, 2017

What a shame. If it is lost let it be our unnecessary example to the PLT crowd.

I was talking to a coworker about this the other day and I don't think the size of the loss was registering. For the Montana guys, this is what a 93,000 acre circle looks like if you dropped its center on Sacagawea Peak in the Bridger Mountains. A lot of land lost.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

The water rights discussion has me wondering if any were associated with this sale. Just because timber might be the motivating factor doesn't mean water is not a concern.

You could argue the trees had a beneficial use which could be sold when they are cleared. Sell it to CA interests. Oh, my head is starting to hurt.

Southern Elk · Feb 15, 2017

Great illustration above. Drop that circle over anybody's hunting spot and he would see the magnitude.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the situation will chime in, but seems like I remember part of the reason that it was sold was that lawsuits from environmentalists prevented logging. So what happens? It gets sold to a timber company. We all have our own interests in these lands, but we will lose them if we don't take a multi-use approach.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Southern Elk said:
Maybe someone with more knowledge of the situation will chime in, but seems like I remember part of the reason that it was sold was that lawsuits from environmentalists prevented logging. So what happens? It gets sold to a timber company.

I don't know if that's true, but it sounds plausible: Can't get what you want by obeying the law? Just use your money to buy your way out of it.

onpoint · Feb 15, 2017

Southern Elk said:
Great illustration above. Drop that circle over anybody's hunting spot and he would see the magnitude.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the situation will chime in, but seems like I remember part of the reason that it was sold was that lawsuits from environmentalists prevented logging. So what happens? It gets sold to a timber company. We all have our own interests in these lands, but we will lose them if we don't take a multi-use approach.

AHH. Once again the term "multiple use" needs definition. Of course whose definition is the Gold Standard????

MTGomer · Feb 15, 2017

Southern Elk said:
Great illustration above. Drop that circle over anybody's hunting spot and he would see the magnitude.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the situation will chime in, but seems like I remember part of the reason that it was sold was that lawsuits from environmentalists prevented logging. So what happens? It gets sold to a timber company. We all have our own interests in these lands, but we will lose them if we don't take a multi-use approach.

I don't know if that is true in this case, but the Matthew Koehlers of the world are every bit as dangerous as the Jennifer Fielders of the world. They may be at the tips of opposite wings, but they are quickly flying the same bird in the same direction.

Southern Elk · Feb 15, 2017

onpoint said:
AHH. Once again the term "multiple use" needs definition. Of course whose definition is the Gold Standard.

If state land by law has to make money and said state land is timber land, it's pretty easy to predict what will happen if the state can't log it. Again, I don't know for a fact that this was the case in this instance. You are correct that multiple use has different meanings based on where you interests lie.

onpoint · Feb 15, 2017

Nameless Range said:
What a shame. If it is lost let it be our unnecessary example to the PLT crowd.

I was talking to a coworker about this the other day and I don't think the size of the loss was registering. For the Montana guys, this is what a 93,000 acre circle looks like if you dropped its center on Sacagawea Peak in the Bridger Mountains. A lot of land lost.

I quit hunting the Bridgers because it has gone to permit system for mule deer, so...........

Nice representation NR.

hank4elk · Feb 15, 2017

And this happened in a green state.

I'm worried,very worried.
Seems like we are being quietly railroaded.
Even more worry some for me is the blue house in NM has a contract out most state services bill flying thru the back doors now.
Another bill just came up putting coyotes & skunks under the licensed trapper rules. And on & on.
And Chaffitz is a demigod again this week in DC.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Southern Elk said:
If state land by law has to make money and said state land is timber land, it's pretty easy to predict what will happen if the state can't log it.

I'm pretty sure the mandate is to make money *legally*. If they can't do that by logging then it's not timber land. It's some other kind of land. Doesn't have to be sold land. And what does "make money" mean? How much money? It may not make as much as logging but I'm sure they can "make money" if only by renting it to public interest groups.

Southern Elk · Feb 15, 2017

hank4elk said:
And this happened in a green state.

This is a great point. I could pick half a dozen other western states that I would have thought this would happen in before Oregon.

Gerald Martin · Feb 15, 2017

James Riley said:
I'm pretty sure the mandate is to make money *legally*. If they can't do that by logging then it's not timber land. It's some other kind of land. Doesn't have to be sold land. And what does "make money" mean? How much money? It may not make as much as logging but I'm sure they can "make money" if only by renting it to public interest groups.

I don't have the article in front of me to reference but I read that management of the Elliot State Forest was costing Oregon a million dollars a year and that lawsuits to stop logging was a major factor in cost, both in terms of litigation and in lost revenue.

I'm sure there are a lot of alternative ways to "make money" off the Elliot Forest, but at the end of the day the decision is up to TWO people who decided it is in the best interest of the state to sell. Local control at its finest. I think everyone up in arms over this sell needs to relax. No doubt those persons closest to the situation can make the best decisions. After all, isn't it unconstitutional for the state to own land? (sarcasm)

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Gerald Martin said:
I don't have the article in front of me to reference but I read that management of the Elliot State Forest was costing Oregon a million dollars a year and that lawsuits to stop logging was a major factor in cost, both in terms of litigation and in lost revenue.

I'm sure there are a lot of alternative ways to "make money" off the Elliot Forest, but at the end of the day the decision is up to TWO people who decided it is in the best interest of the state to sell. Local control at its finest. I think everyone up in arms over this sell needs to relax. No doubt those persons closest to the situation can make the best decisions. After all, isn't it unconstitutional for the state to own land? (sarcasm)

Wow, sounds like they could have saved a million dollars a year by not logging it; then made money by leasing to a public interest group. But yeah, it's easier to liquidate. Future generations won't benefit from the land itself but those two people can invest the money in our soon-to-be deregulated markets and those generations will make all kinds of money! Yippee!

Call to action - Oregon Elliott State Forest

Well-known member

Administrator

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page