Call to action - Oregon Elliott State Forest

[Gerald Martin]

eh never mind....

 

[pointingdogsrule]

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

So I have a question regarding the above quote. I was under the understanding that "if" federal lands were "transferred" to the states... it would only be for the "state to control". The states would control the lands, however, they would not be able to sell the lands. Am I correct or is Southern Elk incorrect. Thanks in advance.

good luck to all
the dog

 

[Big Fin]

So I have a question regarding the above quote. I was under the understanding that "if" federal lands were "transferred" to the states... it would only be for the "state to control". The states would control the lands, however, they would not be able to sell the lands. Am I correct or is Southern Elk incorrect. Thanks in advance.

good luck to all
the dog

Unfortunately for the sake of the lands, what you have been told is incorrect. These groups want ownership to be transferred to State Land Boards and what you see happening with Elliot State Forest would become common, playing exactly into the hands of those who have spent decades pushing for liquidation of public lands.

 

[TripleJ]

This is a cut and paste from an email newsletter I received from the Secretary of State. I don't like the whole concept of losing public lands to private companies, but at least Lone Rock Timber is a timber company that has a history of allowing hunting access.


*************************************************************************************************
Secretary of State
DENNIS RICHARDSON
The State of Oregon
Inquiries: Michael Calcagno, Communications Director / 503-866-7124 /
The Elliott State Forest Sale
SALEM, OR — Today, the sale of the Elliott State Forest (The Elliott) was again the hot topic before the State Land Board. The sale was first proposed by Governor Kate Brown and the other members of the previous Land Board, former Secretary of State Jeanne Atkins and former State Treasurer Ted Wheeler. The sale was proposed over a year and a half ago and during that time, the Board worked to ensure the Common School Fund (CSF) received adequate funding to hire more teachers, reduce class sizes, and add back school days.

Elliott
The Elliott is 82,500 acres of steep and mostly inaccessible timberland placed in trust to generate funding for Oregon public schools. In 1859, when Oregon was granted statehood, the entire state was divided into six-mile-square townships with 36 sections in each township. Two sections of land in every township were granted by the federal government to be held in trust solely for the purpose of supporting public education. In the 1930’s, most of those trust sections were consolidated into what became known as The Elliott. The Elliott is in a land trust dedicated to generating money for the CSF. The CSF provides local funding for Oregon’s 197 school districts. The Trustees of this constitutional land trust for public education makeup the three members of the State Land Board.
In August 2015, in response to low financial returns from The Elliott to the CSF, in August 2015, the members of the previous Land Board decided that it was in the best interest of the CSF to sell The Elliott. Requesting $220.8 million along with other provisions in what is referred to as the “Protocol”, the Board offered to sell The Elliott.
The Land Board’s offer was accepted by the only qualified buyer (a consortium composed of Lone Rock Timber Management Company, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians). For the past 18 months, the consortium has spent more than $500,000 to comply with The Elliott sale Protocol, and the State has spent more than $3.5 million. Although I believe it was a mistake to set such a low asking price, when a seller offers something for sale and the offer is accepted, a deal is made. There may be details to work out, but if the offer is advertised and accepted, the seller can’t just back out. In my opinion, that is unethical.
In addition, the State had offered the tribes the chance to regain some of their ancestral homelands for as long as the river flows and the grass grows. Were we to revoke the sale, we would, yet again, be breaking another promise to Native American tribes.
So today, the two new members of the Land Board, State Treasurer Tobias Read and I, were true to our fiduciary duties as Trustees of The Elliott. By voting to complete the deal made by Governor Brown and the previous Land Board, we are maximizing the financial benefits for Oregon’s 197 school districts. We voted to complete the sale of The Elliott for $220.8 million with three amendments:
The Protocol will allow the state to buy back up to $25 million worth of acreage devoted to conservation;
The Protocol will incorporate Forest Stewardship Council principles into the agreement; and
The Protocol will give rights of first refusal to the five federally recognized tribes in western Oregon on any lands that are put up for sale after the transfer to Elliott Forest, LLC.
The agreement to sell The Elliott contains provisions to protect old growth timber, the Spotted Owl, and the Marbled Murrelet. It provides access to the few hundred hunters, anglers, and hikers who visit The Elliott annually and it guarantees well-paying jobs for families living in nearby rural communities. The agreement also requires timber management to include sustainable harvesting with replanting of those sections when new-growth timber is harvested.
If the sale had gone through in 2015 when it was first made, the $220.8 million would have been invested for three years with the CSF. Over those three years, it would have generated approximately $54 million. Instead, since 2013, The Elliott has cost the CSF nearly $3 million more than it has brought in.
In conclusion, as Trustees of the CSF and managers of the Elliott State Forest trust, we have the fiduciary responsibility to maximize revenue for our K-12 schools. Unfortunately, instead of generating funds, the State’s inability to manage the Elliott productively has cost us money. I did not want to sell The Elliott, but my fiduciary duty as a Trustee is to support the CSF and my ethical duty is to complete a bargain struck in 2015 by Governor Brown and the previous Land Board with Lone Rock and the Native American tribes.

Sincerely,
Dennis Richardson
Oregon Secretary of State
*************************************************************************************************

 

[beginnerhunter]

I couldn't agree more.

And to counter Riley's scenario of leasing to some other group for far less, one must realize that when State Land Boards are doing their analysis of potential return on assets, they are required to look outside the paradigm of "must keep the asset in the form of land." They look at these assets from a portfolio perspective, the same as any money manager would do. If part of the portfolio is not performing, or worse yet, losing, that asset class is usually liquidated and reallocated to other asset types that are performing better.

There is nothing in these State Constitutions or Statutes governing State Land Boards that says they have to get the best return on "the land and only as land." That would imply you must keep it as land, and if so, then the idea to lease it for recreation purposes, however small that lease might be, might have some validity. These State Land Boards are to look at total return.

This is why the Elliot State Forest is the absolute crystal ball for concerns of State Transfer. Notice how the American Land Council and others are not saying a word about this. They know Elliot blows such a big hole in their boat that if people can see a tangible example of the terrible outcomes of State Transfer, they will never be able to bail the boat as fast as the water is coming in.

If the Elliot is in fact sold, which I hope it is not, public land advocates had best salvage from that wreckage the example of what State Transfer represents and use the Elliot history as the tool the kills this stupid idea once and for all.

I hope Outdoorlife, fieldandstream, etc. are covering this. If this happens in Oregon, it sure as hell will happen in Utah, Idaho, and every other state.

And it's not like environmental lawsuits are going to stop once your state controls the land.

 

[James Riley]

Did you miss the part that said, "Financial Return" or is the just wanting to pick and choose that which fits the narrative? I have increased the font size so it is not so easy to disregard.

As uncomfortable as it is out here in the real world, the rest of the world is forced to read the entire sentences that comprise laws and regulations and work within those confines, with maybe some exceptions occupying Congress and the West Wing. Last I checked judges do not, and judges do not instruct juries to, use the five words they most liked out of 40 words presented as evidence and make their decisions on cases.

I suspect most would agree, other than you, that based on just what little you copied here from ID, that you are mistaken to have the idea that financial returns are not the criteria.

I do think all can agree that the Elliot will go down as a tragedy. I hope it gets salvaged in some way, shape or form.

Yeah, I can read in complete sentences, but apparently you can't read complete paragraphs or you would not have ignored the balance of my post.
It's real rich for you to be in here talking about what judges and juries have to do while whining about them being called upon to do it.

Finally, financial gain (which I never contested) is qualified by the language you asked me to provide you with. Language you apparently didn't think existed.

As to politicians who don't have to read, maybe folks will think about that next time they pull a lever for an R.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Historical precedent aside and no matter how good a timber company has been to allow access, it is still private land and can be closed at the owners whim. Those who enjoy the privilege of accessing privately owned timber lands are not ensured that privilege will remain.


That email reads like a blatant attempt to convince us that bovine scat smells like fine perfume.

 

[Straight Arrow]

And it's not like environmental lawsuits are going to stop once your state controls the land.

Similarly, it's not like Congressionally approved wildlife, air quality, water quality, and a myriad of other "environmental" laws won't apply to state ownership and management of these lands ... and restrict the resource extraction and other uses so adamantly whined about by the PLT folks. In some states, the state laws are even more restricting. It would boil down to increased management constraints and issues, with decreased resources to resolve issues.

 

[TripleJ]

Historical precedent aside and no matter how good a timber company has been to allow access, it is still private land and can be closed at the owners whim. Those who enjoy the privilege of accessing privately owned timber lands are not ensured that privilege will remain.


That email reads like a blatant attempt to convince us that bovine scat smells like fine perfume.

I agree, I don't ever trust timber companies for access. I only posted the email for informational purposes. I wish there was no land sale going forward. I would very much rather the land stay public. From what I understand, the deal was already made last year. The land was put on the market by the governor and her staff and Lone Rock agreed to purchase it at the price named. Everything was said and done, waiting on yesterday's final seal of approval from the land board. Last week, caving to pressure from her constituents, the governor flipped sides and released an opposing plan to keep the Elliott in state lands and still generate money. In my opinion, it was merely an attempt to save face for the governor and her staff, coming out in opposition to the deal that she and her staff had already made and set in place. Now she can say she was against it in the future, even though she and her staff were the ones that came up with it in the first place.

 

[tjones]

Yeah, I can read in complete sentences, but apparently you can't read complete paragraphs or you would not have ignored the balance of my post.
It's real rich for you to be in here talking about what judges and juries have to do while whining about them being called upon to do it.

Finally, financial gain (which I never contested) is qualified by the language you asked me to provide you with. Language you apparently didn't think existed.

As to politicians who don't have to read, maybe folks will think about that next time they pull a lever for an R.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Similarly, it's not like Congressionally approved wildlife, air quality, water quality, and a myriad of other "environmental" laws won't apply to state ownership and management of these lands ... and restrict the resource extraction and other uses so adamantly whined about by the PLT folks. In some states, the state laws are even more restricting. It would boil down to increased management constraints and issues, with decreased resources to resolve issues.

For sure, more lawsuits, possibly (probably?) less revenues, leading to sale. What a joke.

That's what is so illuminating about this case.

 

[James Riley]

View attachment 68049

The truth: sometimes you have to dig for it.

 

[James Riley]

Politicians print money but when it comes to land, as realtors say, they ain't making any more. The long term financial interests counsel against short term sale. They should also factor in the financial benefit of "environmental services" (google it). Funny how that never gets counted until it's too late.

 

[Jwill]

Some blame should be given to the environmental litigators, no? Proceeding with the nuclear option of having the land sold, locked up, and timbered, rather than timber sales by the state seems incredibly stupid to me... Though putting on the tinfoil hat on makes me wonder if the potential purchasers didn't fund/instigate those lawsuits in some way...

 

[u1299]

Historical precedent aside and no matter how good a timber company has been to allow access, it is still private land and can be closed at the owners whim. Those who enjoy the privilege of accessing privately owned timber lands are not ensured that privilege will remain.


That email reads like a blatant attempt to convince us that bovine scat smells like fine perfume.

That's the main reason I only hunt public land with the exception of block management, that being I come and go as I please when I please and no one whether justified or not can come up to me and say I have to leave. To me the freedom of knowing I am hunting somewhere where permission is not required is worth more than a private spot where the hunting may be better but where that priveledge can be revoked at a landowners whim. My respect to landowners who are so kind as to allow access but it's just for me. My guess is a lot of other public land hunters feel the same way.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

for some reason around here,once it turns private logging it out is what happens,,,don't know why the eviromental lawsuits only happen on public lands,,,she will be logged heavy over the next few years as there is a lot of big timber in there ready for harvest,,more than enough to have the timber company profit well more than the 220 mil offer they gave for it.most logging around here is on private grounds and I don't understand?ive been there feet on the ground and suspect Dennis Richardson has never even set foot on those lands.truly a sad day for Oregon public lands,,I imagine Elliot is rolling in his grave on this.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

next land board meeting is in april,,,hopefully something can be proposed as a alternative by then,,hopefully we can hear about GOV KATE BROWNS public buyout option?

 

[James Riley]

Some blame should be given to the environmental litigators, no? Proceeding with the nuclear option of having the land sold, locked up, and timbered, rather than timber sales by the state seems incredibly stupid to me... Though putting on the tinfoil hat on makes me wonder if the potential purchasers didn't fund/instigate those lawsuits in some way...

You might be right. First, I would say "may", not "should". Unless and until I see the nature of their legal action, I don't think we can say. For all we know it was a righteous case and the hunting community might should otta been in there litigating with them (side bar: I've seen a lot of hunters asking where the greens are on certain issues lately; well a lot of greens have been asking for decades where the hell hunters are on certain issues). Second, I haven't even seen any evidence that they were actually behind the expense, or were the reason this happened. Third, worse case scenario, I doubt they saw their own land board in a green state doing something like this. Not even a "heads up" so it really wouldn't be incredibly stupid unless they knew. Finally, I am a tin foil hat guy but I don't think the loggers/land board in this case were that smart or foresighted. I'm not even sure the land board was really into this. They might just have a Wall Street (not a bank or trust) understanding of "fiduciary duty". Although it might become a plan of attack in the future.

That's just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[LopeHunter]

Did I accidentally log in to Monster Muleys? I do not have a log in there but maybe is the work of Diablo. Now where did I put that garlic?

 

[LuketheDog]

I am a tin foil hat guy.

You'd have to be not to give the greenies any culpability on this one. It will happen again though, same scenario, different place, and we can point fingers at the other side then too...