Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 01, 2015, 12:02:45 PM
Figured some on here may be interested in this. They've been buying land from Rayonier along rivers trying to build corridors between segments of the national park. The article says hunting is allowed. When I've checked the TNC website for previous purchases, it was very vague, saying you had to contact their local manager. Could never get info from the managers to confirm. Anyways, it would be free access compared to the pay per play of Rayonier.
And I've heard (conspiracy theory?) that they are buying land adjacent to the park/corridors so that they can sell to the park next time there is a big push for the park to acquire land from willing sellers for an expansion. Short term gain/long term loss (for hunting)?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 01, 2015, 12:13:31 PM
I don't know when the last time western National Parks added to their ownership by buying large blocks of private land outside of inholdings. I would bet it was before I was born while Ike was President.
In fact, I bet Ike was a Major when it last happened.
Post by: bobcat on April 01, 2015, 12:20:17 PM
Post by: ouchfoss on April 01, 2015, 08:05:04 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 01, 2015, 08:17:50 PM
Different organizations have been trying to set aside, and preserve, and take away our land out here for as long as I can remember. Wild Olympics is the latest one. Don't drink their Koolaid!
I doubt it's "your" (our) land the Nature Conservancy is buying up. They are buying land from other private land holders.
Again, where is the evidence they're going to sell to the park? The locals are free to buy the land also
Post by: timberfaller on April 01, 2015, 08:57:12 PM
Nature Conservancy
Bio-Diversity
People for a Sustainable...(where ever)
The American Way
The United Way
Just to name a select few of MANY!
Don't look at what they DO, LOOK and find out WHO they are and their "hidden agendas"!! :yike:
"locals" don't have a chance at buying what these people do. The "members" of just the above groups are funded heavily by the super rich(tax write offs)and leave it up to sheep to acquire what they can. Both in real estate and Money and EPA agenda's(under the radar).
Post by: bobcat on April 01, 2015, 09:05:01 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 01, 2015, 09:11:48 PM
I'm a big fan of the Nature Conservancy. They are able to protect a lot of land that is most often very important fish and wildlife habitat, and on much of the land they own, hunting is allowed. What's not to like about that? They're not charging for access like all the timber companies do. Maybe do a little research on the Nature Conservancy, it just might change your opinion. They're really not much different than the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in what they do.
Sounds like YOU HAVE dranken there KOOL-AID lock stock and BARREL. Why do RESEARCH? It's just a bunch of PROPAGANDA by there COMMY friends :chuckle: :bash:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 01, 2015, 09:13:22 PM
I'm a big fan of the Nature Conservancy. They are able to protect a lot of land that is very important fish and wildlife habitat, and on much of the land they own, hunting is allowed. What's not to like about that? They're not charging for access like all the timber companies do. Maybe do a little research on the Nature Conservancy, it just might change your opinion. They're really not much different than the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in what they do.Well, I remember a place I used to hunt. Then the TNC bought all the private land and hunting was no longer allowed. A few years later that land became part of a USFWS refuge.
Post by: Bullkllr on April 01, 2015, 09:16:41 PM
Post by: bradslam on April 01, 2015, 09:29:21 PM
In my lifetime, I have lost access to literally thousands of acres of land due to speculation and development. So many farms and timberlands are now 20 acre parcels with No Hunting signs on them. I would rather have the Nature Conservancy buy the land then some retired Microsoft or Amazon employee from Seattle.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 01, 2015, 09:34:50 PM
Some Nature Conservancy lands remain open to hunting and some don't. .
I think most is
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 01, 2015, 09:45:56 PM
Yeah, and about a dozen places I used to hunt are housing developments or warehouses.Seen a TON of that too. I'd prefer it turned into park or refuge before more of that! Private landowners can sell who they want to. Just saying I don't get the warm and fuzzies to the same extent as others when I hear TNC is involved in a land sale. A loss of hunting is just that whenever/whoever the landowner happens to be/use it for.
Post by: ouchfoss on April 01, 2015, 11:07:13 PM
With the way private timberlands have been heading lately because all the access fees and leases, I like the idea of areas being open to the public like NFS and DNR and I really hope that Nature Conservancy actually does keep the land open for all outdoorsmen to enjoy. We'll see I guess.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on April 02, 2015, 05:12:41 AM
My whole reason for not feeling good about Nature Conservancy was they seemed to show up around here not long after the Wild Olympics campaign started making enemies with locals. Wild Olympics actually does want to take OUR land (NFS and DNR) as well as private owned timberlands...........
You can read the Bill here:
https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3922/BILLS-113hr3922ih.pdf (https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr3922/BILLS-113hr3922ih.pdf)
In fact it looks like no lands are designated NP, and all private lands are specifically excluded.
I'm not sure how the NC is connected to all this, but the the Nature Conservancy has willing private sellers sell them private land. This is how the free market operates.
Post by: idahohuntr on April 02, 2015, 07:15:45 AM
:chuckle:I'm a big fan of the Nature Conservancy. They are able to protect a lot of land that is most often very important fish and wildlife habitat, and on much of the land they own, hunting is allowed. What's not to like about that? They're not charging for access like all the timber companies do. Maybe do a little research on the Nature Conservancy, it just might change your opinion. They're really not much different than the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in what they do.
Sounds like YOU HAVE dranken there KOOL-AID lock stock and BARREL. Why do RESEARCH? It's just a bunch of PROPAGANDA by there COMMY friends :chuckle: :bash:
Post by: blackdog on April 02, 2015, 02:19:30 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 02, 2015, 08:09:30 PM
Free market at work.Knocker is right.
I don't know when the last time western National Parks added to their ownership by buying large blocks of private land outside of inholdings. I would bet it was before I was born while Ike was President.
In fact, I bet Ike was a Major when it last happened.
Many people have this fear of any land that is close to a park will eventually become a park. In reality, adding lands to a park is pretty difficult.
Each NPS unit has a boundary (duh) and those lands within that boundary may be entirely govt or a mix. Those private lands within a boundary is known as an "inholding." The boundary is essentially the acquisition boundary. The agency has the approval from Congress to acquire any private lands within that boundary, all the agency has to do is fund it. The NPS cannot acquire lands outside of the boundary.
So lets say the NPS wants to acquire lands outside the boundary, what needs to happen is Congress will have to approve a bill that expands/changes the boundary. This sounds easy, but there have been largely bipartisan bills of similar nature in Congress for years. Once that happens then the NPS can acquire the lands.
So realistically if I had 1,000 acres of land next to Olympic NP outside of their boundary and I wanted to donate the lands upon my death, I couldn't do so. Congress would have to approve a bill to expand the boundary to include those lands, then once that happens the donation proceedings can occur.
There is an exemption which allows parks to acquire very small pieces of land without Congressional approval which will result in the boundary being changed, but again those are very small pieces of land.
National Forests and National Wildlife Refuges basically have to follow the same rules. They can't acquire lands outside of their boundary without congressional approval. The only agency without such boundaries is BLM. If someone donated 10 acres of land to BLM in downtown Seattle, BLM could take it.
Post by: NumaJohn on April 02, 2015, 08:33:00 PM
I was a member for years, but then didn't renew because I was putting my money into RMEF and American Rivers. This thread has me thinking it might be time to re-up with TNC. I would certainly rather have land in TNC's hands, even if it wasn't huntable, than in the hands of developers.
I always used to appreciate the bumper sticker that read "Cows, not Condos." In this case, I'll change that to "TNC, no Condos."
John