Plum Creek Selling Montana Property to NC

[Nameless Range]

Then you better get involved Shoot's.

The "whoa is me", class envy crap, that gets spewed on this site, get's a little old. If it wasn't for the "filthy rich" contributors to the TNC, this land purchase would have never happened.

BHR,

That's not how the Nature Conservancy operates on these large land purchases. TNC functions more like a real estate investor and borrows money on which it has a limited amount of time to pay back. A division of the Conservancy functions as a bank from which the conservation side of the Conservancy borrows - "filthy rich" contributors aside.

Of course TNC's decisions on what to sell to who are intended to be utilitarian, so sometimes tactical decisions are made to sell certain parcels on which access and habitat may be lost so that larger and better chunks of country can be preserved in the future.

The idea that they will sell this land and we will lose access in the future flies in the face of the background evidence.

Look at the Montana Legacy Project. Over 200,000 acres are now in public or state ownership thanks to TNC - and I remember all sorts of people crying wolf when that was happening too. Turns out they were wrong. The background evidence says they will be wrong on this as well.

You are correct that much of this land is not worth much per acre, and that Missoula County is not subdivision friendly. Coming from a county that has been subdivided to oblivion over the last 20 years, I see this as a good thing. But a "filthy rich" developer would be happy to have much of this land. Look at what some parcels along the highway 200 corridor are going for. I have no doubt there are people out there who would love to own a section of land with their own lake. Additionally, as we are seeing now in Montana, there are "filthy rich" bastards out there with enough pull to buy ridiculous swaths of land for their own purposes- ag or otherwise. Typically, their ownership of such lands signals the end of public access. Again, this has not been the case when the Nature Conservancy takes ownership of land in Montana.

In the end, public ownership is the most reliable way to guarantee access into the future. TNC delivers that time and time again, while in the meantime allowing hunting and outdoor recreation on the vast majority of the lands they currently own in Montana. Increased Private ownership, especially by "filthy rich" individuals, always seems to result in a net-loss of access .

People can only cry wolf so many times.

 

[Ben Long]

BigHornRam...TNC has a pretty strong record of allowing public hunting on lands where it is logical. All the lands they bought in the Swan Valley is either still open for public or has been handed over to DNRC or USFS, where it is still open for hunting. Plum Creek was always good about access, but a lot of other timber companies elsewhere are not. I have lost a LOT of access when PC sold to small private. I do agree with you that we need to keep our eyes open and make sure promises are kept.

 

[----]

greenhorn....to fund larger purchases....and do not count on being able to hunt this ground for much longer.

What a load of BS. Other than a handful of 100 acre chunks, I feel very confident this land will be accessible for generations to come.

I'd be willing to bet on that, and I'm sure you wouldn't for what you said.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I know very little about the Nature Conservancy, other than I've personally seen absolutely huge big game animals on some of the places that allow hunting by permission, without charging hunters. win - win.

 

[TheTone]

I spent a season working for TNC a few years back. The folks I worked with were dedicated hunters and the lands I worked on allowed unlimited public access and hunting. I know that can't said for all TNC lands, but public access is almost always allowed. My bet is they won't hang on to this land forever; long term ownership of large pieces really isn't what they do. I wouldn't be surprised if they keep a small piece and then trade or sell the rest in the future. That's exactly what they did on some of the land where I was; kept a piece for themselves and transferred the majority to BLM. Best case scenario is certainly into public hands, but they will also sell to a "conservation buyer" if it fits for them.
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiative...itedstates/idaho/placesweprotect/45-ranch.xml

The 45 ranch was TNC property until they found such a buyer. Looks like public access was preserved through the ranch for river access, however it doesn't look like their is any public access to the actual ranch lands which is a bummer.

 

[shoots-straight]

Robert,

I've never seen you at the Youth Outdoor Expo. First meeting is Thursday night. Going to be there?

So is the "Youth Outdoor Expo" a conservation group? It's a day event to turn kids on to hunting. That's great, but they will never continue if there's nothing to hunt, or no where to go.

We have supported the "Youth Outdoor Expo" with money and man power. Several of our members do that work each year. They have that handled.

Will you be working on access, or legislative bills? How about the public lands rally in Helena on the 16th? Going?




#1 reason our "youth" quit hunting is because of access. So without that your efforts are mute.

 

[BigHornRam]

So is the "Youth Outdoor Expo" a conservation group? It's a day event to turn kids on to hunting. That's great, but they will never continue if there's nothing to hunt, or no where to go.

We have supported the "Youth Outdoor Expo" with money and man power. Several of our members do that work each year. They have that handled.

Will you be working on access, or legislative bills? How about the public lands rally in Helena on the 16th? Going?




#1 reason our "youth" quit hunting is because of access. So without that your efforts are mute.

Shoot's,

I'm working on access on this issue right here. I've passed on details to Cody, and the MT guy's. I've talked to Chris about TNC's plans. I plan on attending the TNC public meetings reguarding this purchase, that are coming up. Going?

I try to focus my limited time to areas where I think I can make a difference. The youth expo is one of them.

 

[BigHornRam]

With the Legacy Project, TNC already had buyers for the land lined up. This time around they don't. They got an offer out of the blue from Plum Creek that was to good to refuse, and they jumped on it. Admittedly they are flying by the seat of their pant's. So that's why it's important for sportsmen's groups to get involved.

So if a timber company like say Pyramid buys some of these properties, maybe at a reduced price, but with easements that require public recreational access, would this be acceptable to you guy's? I can tell you right now, that the Missoula area enviro kooks would pitch a fit, and try to blow the deal up. Could you guy's support this?

 

[shoots-straight]

With the Legacy Project, TNC already had buyers for the land lined up. This time around they don't. They got an offer out of the blue from Plum Creek that was to good to refuse, and they jumped on it. Admittedly they are flying by the seat of their pant's. So that's why it's important for sportsmen's groups to get involved.

So if a timber company like say Pyramid buys some of these properties, maybe at a reduced price, but with easements that require public recreational access, would this be acceptable to you guy's? I can tell you right now, that the Missoula area enviro kooks would pitch a fit, and try to blow the deal up. Could you guy's support this?

The fact that the lands are still owned by a private entity makes the weight of those that would "pitch a fit" less of a concern for TNC. Same goes for our interests.

We will weigh in if given the chance. We always do!

 

[BigHornRam]

The fact that the lands are still owned by a private entity makes the weight of those that would "pitch a fit" less of a concern for TNC. Same goes for our interests.

We will weigh in if given the chance. We always do!

Not sure exactly what you are saying here Shoot's. Can you explain?

 

[BigHornRam]

Guess you don't want to clarify your comment Shoot's, so I'll just have to assume what you're saying.

Public ownership of these lands is the only thing acceptable to you. How about the rest of you here? Is that what everyone here thinks? Buzz, NR, Randy?

So how do you guy's plan on paying for this? Is RCWF going to contribute Shoot's? How much?

“We realize the world has changed a lot since we started the Legacy Project, so we expect to have to have a lot of public support for secured public access and that kind of thing.”


The world has changed since the Legacy Project. The world is on the verge of bankruptcy, including this country. Public Support means cash. Where is that going to come from?

 

[shoots-straight]

Not sure exactly what you are saying here Shoot's. Can you explain?

It means we put forth our efforts where we can do the most good. Telling private property owners what they should do with their lands isn't something we like to get into, unless asked by those involved. We believe in all property rights, not just the extractive industries.

As usual your attempts at jabs are off the mark.

 

[Nameless Range]

BHR, I like the pictures, and have stood on much of the ground within them. As I said, I'd prefer public ownership ultimately, as I think it is best for ensuring access in perpetuity.

When I moved to Missoula at 19, I was blown away by how much property Plum Creek owned. I was clueless about them. Where I grew up in Jefferson County it was either Forest Service, BLM, or large ranches. I was eyeballing doing some hunting for Whitetail up Schwartz Creek east of Missoula, and called the Plum Creek office requesting permission to hunt their lands. The gal on the other end of the phone seemed confused, gave the phone to another guy, and he kind of laughed at me and explained that Plum Creek lands are pretty much treated as public lands when it comes to outdoor recreation. I was amazed and grateful. I think Western Montanans take this for granted. I know I didn't, and have sent more than one thank you after successful hunts on their properties. There is nothing that I know of that says they have to allow the public on their lands.

If another timber company bought that land from the Conservancy, so be it. If a private individual buys the land, shuts out the public, and does what ever they want with it I can accept that.I will voice my opinions, support the organizations with my money that I think do a good job of preserving habitat and access(including TNC), and realize that private property rights exist and are a good thing.

That said, like I wrote earlier, the TNC owning this land increases the likelihood that future owners of the land - public or otherwise - will continue to allow access and preserve the habitat quality. Thus, I view TNC's acquisition of this land as a good thing.

 

[BigHornRam]

NM,

Thanks for the honest response. You are right about many Western Montanan's taking access to PC lands for granted. You say you prefer public ownership ultimately, which would also be my preference. Realistically, it is doubtful that all, or even a majority of this will end up in public ownership. How would you propose to pay for the parcels to do end up in public ownership?

 

[shoots-straight]

NM,

Thanks for the honest response. You are right about many Western Montanan's taking access to PC lands for granted. You say you prefer public ownership ultimately, which would also be my preference. Realistically, it is doubtful that all, or even a majority of this will end up in public ownership. How would you propose to pay for the parcels to do end up in public ownership?

As long a NR hunters continue to come to Montana there will be a funding sources. There are bills going through right now to make Residents pay more in those funds. As long as people buy ammo and sporting goods, there will be money available, exclusive of how broke our country is. Do some research.

 

[Nameless Range]

Realistically, it is doubtful that all, or even a majority of this will end up in public ownership. How would you propose to pay for the parcels to do end up in public ownership?

BHR,

I don't claim to know how, if, how much, or when this land will be transferred. But I have strong reason to believe, based on their previous actions, they will attempt to transfer some or much of this land into public ownership. Money can come from quite a few sources - whether it is enough I don't claim to know.

From their representative in the GF Tribune:

"We're not exactly sure of the ultimate ownership of lots of this land," he said. "That will really be determined by how people can best use the place. Some big part of it might end up being working forest — after we do appropriate restoration and really let the forest rest for a while. It's been really worked heavily over the years and needs time to recover; but within the bounds of what's good for nature there's a lot of space to figure how do we really conserve and protect the place and at the same time still allow people to access it and use it."

This is from Tester's Website:

"The Conservancy announced its intention to work with local communities and partners to develop a locally-driven plan to place the lands into public and long-term private conservation ownership".

We'll see what happens, but judging from what TNC has to say regarding the purchase, public access and habitat protection will be paramount when it comes to any transfers. Though I deeply value what Plum Creek has given me, that wasn't part of their mission statement, so I feel better about the future of this country now that TNC owns it.

 

[katqanna]

Land lapse - Transfer movement raises fears over public access

I was wondering if anyone was thinking along these lines. If groups who purchase land to increase the public access and land holding, generally turning it over to a fed or state agency, are concerned with the growing move by special interest people like Fielder and Ivory, what will the future of these type of purchases be or result in if they fear a federal public lands transfer?

The Nature Conservancy hopes to transition more than 117,000 acres of Plum Creek land purchased near the Blackfoot River last month into public hands. But some now fear the movement to transfer federal lands to state control will result in more private holdings and less public access.

Conservation advocates like TNC, however, are far from entertained. Given the widespread public acclaim garnered by the latest purchase and its predecessor, the 310,000-acre Montana Legacy Project, TNC land conservation specialist Mary Hollow questions just how much public support the transfer of public lands has in the state. She adds that small communities like those along the Blackfoot River are the people who have approached TNC about acquiring private property for public ownership in the first place.

“It’s a very disappointing dialogue in my opinion,” Hollow says. “It is not well informed, and it’s not locally grown. The last point there is the thing that bothers me the most about it. This is a conversation that’s been generated by the American Lands Council and sold to a legislator to carry. That’s not a Montana way, and that’s certainly not how Montanans operate.”.