Call to action - Oregon Elliott State Forest

[James Riley]

You'd have to be not to give the greenies any culpability on this one.

Like I said in the post above, I have yet to see any evidence the greenies had anything to do with this. You have a case citation? I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm just saying there are a lot of folks putting the cart before the horse here. "It's a communist plot, I tell ya!"

And, as I said in the post above, even if there is a case citation, has anyone read it to see the merits of the case, if any?

And, then, does anyone have any evidence the greenies knew this might be the possible result of their litigation? Should they know the land board would not look toward the long-term interests of the trust assets?

So far, crickets.

Here is where Finn made his mistake; in responding to my post about charges he said: “All of my reading shows these charges to be focused on financial returns for funding the school system, with no other non-financial criteria are provided for consideration.”

In what I percieve to be his eagerness to dispute anything to do with environmentalist suing agencies and corporations, he assumed I was talking about “non-financial criteria.” But I never said anything about non-financial criteria. I said: “. . . most charges I am aware of look to "long term interest" not just portfolio performance.”

This is a clear distinction between long-term and short-term portfolio performance.

His next mistake was saying: “If [sic] not found anything about "long term interest" in all of my research.”

I then quoted him a section of the Idaho State Constitution that specifically states: “in such manner as will secure the maximum long-term financial return to the institution to which [it is] granted.”

He again tried to parse “long-term” from “financial” which *I never separated*.

I have since done additional research and find the term “long-term” repeatedly used throughout this area of law. I can cite law review articles, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, regulations, statutes and Constitutions that specifically reference the long-term interests that are to be protected under the principle of trust management of state school trust lands.

So, in conclusion, he made an assumption about what I said and he was wrong.

The next logical step in the argument is to discuss the difference between long-term and short-term performance and what a trust obligation entails. The fact that state land boards might be violating their long-term term trust obligations is not my fault, nor the fault of environmental groups who seek to maintain the long-term value of trust assets.

Here's a good law review article regarding the matter. And this goes to the ballot box issue I was talking about. Anyone who cares about forcing State's to consider their long-term trust obligations instead of a quick buck might want to think about this next time they want to vote for a Republican (you know, the same short-sighted people who want to invest Social Security in the stock market): http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/farcountry/Sitla/ManagingStateTrustLands1999NYUlawReview.pdf

 

[Big Fin]

Like I said in the post above, I have yet to see any evidence the greenies had anything to do with this. You have a case citation? I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm just saying there are a lot of folks putting the cart before the horse here. "It's a communist plot, I tell ya!"

And, as I said in the post above, even if there is a case citation, has anyone read it to see the merits of the case, if any?

And, then, does anyone have any evidence the greenies knew this might be the possible result of their litigation? Should they know the land board would not look toward the long-term interests of the trust assets?

So far, crickets.

Google is your friend. These took five minutes:

https://www.cascwild.org/press-rele...-from-logging-on-former-elliott-state-forest/

In 2012 the three groups sued the state of Oregon for illegally logging marbled murrelet habitat on the Elliott and other state forests. The state settled the suit in 2014, agreeing to drop 26 timber sales and stop logging in occupied murrelet habitat. But following the loss, the state sold three parcels totaling 1,453 acres, even though they contained mature and old-growth forests that are occupied by the murrelet, including the 355-acre Benson Ridge parcel.

http://kswild.org/pressroom/press-r...wl-prompt-lawsuit-on-the-elliott-state-forest

I'm too busy with tax returns to read and examine the cases, their merits, or no merits. Point is, this forest has been subject to huge numbers of lawsuits, some of which, maybe all of which could have merit. Yet, whether the cases have merit or not, the reality is that litigation is a contributing reality to this outcome.

 

[Big Fin]

Here is where Finn made his mistake; in responding to my post about charges he said: “All of my reading shows these charges to be focused on financial returns for funding the school system, with no other non-financial criteria are provided for consideration.”

In what I percieve to be his eagerness to dispute anything to do with environmentalist suing agencies and corporations, he assumed I was talking about “non-financial criteria.” But I never said anything about non-financial criteria. I said: “. . . most charges I am aware of look to "long term interest" not just portfolio performance.”

This is a clear distinction between long-term and short-term portfolio performance.

His next mistake was saying: “If [sic] not found anything about "long term interest" in all of my research.”

I then quoted him a section of the Idaho State Constitution that specifically states: “in such manner as will secure the maximum long-term financial return to the institution to which [it is] granted.”

He again tried to parse “long-term” from “financial” which *I never separated*.

I have since done additional research and find the term “long-term” repeatedly used throughout this area of law. I can cite law review articles, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, regulations, statutes and Constitutions that specifically reference the long-term interests that are to be protected under the principle of trust management of state school trust lands.

So, in conclusion, he made an assumption about what I said and he was wrong.

The next logical step in the argument is to discuss the difference between long-term and short-term performance and what a trust obligation entails. The fact that state land boards might be violating their long-term term trust obligations is not my fault, nor the fault of environmental groups who seek to maintain the long-term value of trust assets.

Here's a good law review article regarding the matter. And this goes to the ballot box issue I was talking about. Anyone who cares about forcing State's to consider their long-term trust obligations instead of a quick buck might want to think about this next time they want to vote for a Republican (you know, the same short-sighted people who want to invest Social Security in the stock market): http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/farcountry/Sitla/ManagingStateTrustLands1999NYUlawReview.pdf

Now that you've edited your post, I guess I should respond to what you've added before I get back to tax returns.

Better yet, no response is necessary. I just re-read it and is a perfect indictment of your case. Thanks for providing such. Saved me a lot of time. Carry on.....

 

[James Riley]

Yet, whether the cases have merit or not, the reality is that litigation is a contributing reality to this outcome.

That is the nut of the matter right there. Some folks would have people forego a meritorious case (i.e. the law) 1. out of fear that an agency might liquidate valuable trust assets, and 2. even when the agency could have avoided the litigation costs by not defending against a meritorious case. If that's the way we're going to do things then we might as well pitch the law and let industry do whatever they want.

P.S. Google was your friend on "long-term". Took me five minutes. Point being, if you're going to make the argument, it's not on me to go find your citations for you. Looks like the plaintiff's in the case were meritorious, no?

 

[James Riley]

I just re-read it and is a perfect indictment of your case.

That's like one of NHY's meems (sp?) with no meaning, and a cop out. I demonstrated, in spades, your false assumption about what I said. Unless, of course, you want go back and show me where I said anything about non-financial criteria. I didn't, so again, it must be more crickets.

 

[tjones]

That's like one of NHY's meems (sp?) with no meaning, and a cop out. I demonstrated, in spades, your false assumption about what I said. Unless, of course, you want go back and show me where I said anything about non-financial criteria. I didn't, so again, it must be more crickets.

Good grief dude.


Fin is there a way to not see a specific user's post? On some other forms its an "ignore" setting

 

[Big Fin]

Good grief dude.


Fin is there a way to not see a specific user's post? On some other forms its an "ignore" setting

Yes, you can select which users you want to ignore. I think it is in the CP panel.

 

[tjones]

Yes, you can select which users you want to ignore. I think it is in the CP panel.

On it. Thanks

 

[James Riley]

I went and read one of your citations, Finn, and it says this: "The Oregon attorney general has stated that this provision authorizes management of these lands to secure both economic and non-economic values." So, even though I never made the argument that any state land board must consider non-financial criteria, apparently in Oregon, they can. So they didn't have to sell.

Edited to add: "Although logging in the Elliott’s spotted-owl habitat would cause tremendous harm to the species, there is no problem with continued logging in other areas in the Forest. In fact, since 2005, the state has fallen behind in conducting required “plantation thinning” on about 3,000 acres in the Elliott." From Finn's citation.

So the state wasn't even doing what they could to generate funds.

 

[Big Fin]

That's like one of NHY's meems (sp?) with no meaning, and a cop out. I demonstrated, in spades, your false assumption about what I said. Unless, of course, you want go back and show me where I said anything about non-financial criteria. I didn't, so again, it must be more crickets.

That is funny as hell. Thanks for providing more evidence that supports my points. All those posts since you made that fringe are "Crickets," eh? That's even funnier yet.

As to your other point, I wish I could communicate as succinctly as NHY. Unfortunately, it takes me a few more sentences to make my point. His prose is the best we have on this site, or on any internet forum I've ever participated in. Glad to be compare to his communication style, however undeserved such accolade may be when given to me.

Now, back to the issue of selling the Elliot.

It matters not who, why, or for what reason the Elliot will be the sacrificial lamb. What matters is that we do all we can to try find a better alternative than selling the Elliot. And what matters even more is that we don't give one damn acre to western State Land Boards, preventing our currently accessible Federal lands from being placed in ownership of entities operating with such narrow considerations of what true value assets can have beyond some bean counter giving a simplified ROI calculation at the end of the year.

Stopping this liquidation effort is what is important here. And that will be the lesson and rallying point to take from the Elliot, whether it is rescued from auction or whether it becomes a tragic casualty.

 

[James Riley]

That is funny as hell. Thanks for providing more evidence that supports my points. All those posts since you made that fringe are "Crickets," eh? That's even funnier yet.

As to your other point, I wish I could communicate as succinctly as NHY. Unfortunately, it takes me a few more sentences to make my point. His prose is the best we have on this site, or on any internet forum I've ever participated in. Glad to be compare to his communication style, however undeserved such accolade may be when given to me.

Now, back to the issue of selling the Elliot.

It matters not who, why, or for what reason the Elliot will be the sacrificial lamb. What matters is that we do all we can to try find a better alternative than selling the Elliot. And what matters even more is that we don't give one damn acre to western State Land Boards, preventing our currently accessible Federal lands from being placed in ownership of entities operating with such narrow considerations of what true value assets can have beyond some bean counter giving a simplified RIO calculation at the end of the year.

Stopping this liquidation effort is what is important here. And that will be the lesson and rallying point to take from the Elliot, whether it is rescued from auction or whether it becomes a tragic casualty.

NHY is good, when he writes. I specifically referenced meaningless memes stolen from the internet (with no writing or thought). Still no evidence I ever referenced non-financial asset considerations. So yeah, crickets.

As to the rest, you are preaching to the choir. In fact, hunters could add a lot of cred to the environmental movement if they'd start pitching in on these lawsuits. Forcing state land boards to consider the long term integrity of their assets, like they apparently have done in Oregon, is a start. Then voting for politicians who won't appoint lackies to the land board. But that's all the political stuff I referenced. That is certainly no fault to be laid at the door of the greenies.

Finally, I think we are posting past each other and thus missing some of what's been said until after a post. I know it doesn't help when I edit.

 

[noharleyyet]

James, "meems" are a less is more type of missive. I'm not surprised you don't appreciate their cryptic relevancy. Should decorum perchance reconcile with your sensitivities you might consider leaving me out of threads I'm not participating in.

 

[James Riley]

James, "meems" are a less is more type of missive. I'm not surprised you don't appreciate their cryptic relevancy. Should decorum perchance reconcile with your sensitivities you might consider leaving me out of threads I'm not participating in.

Memes are akin to bumper sticker logic and beneath your obvious skill set. Finn's dismissive statement about me making his point, with no evidence, reminded me of those memes. They are only "less is more" when there is some more to be found. Too cryptic and they remind one of passive aggression, or empty political rhetoric. Especially when a man can stand up on his hind legs and actually say what he means. As I know you can. When they are tossed around, they draw fire whether you happen to be involved a given thread, or not. They serve as an example.

 

[noharleyyet]

Nor do I waste a skill set with term papers because someone's wrong on the www.

...reminds me of a meme.

 

[James Riley]

Nor do I waste a skill set with term papers because someone's wrong on the www.

...reminds me of a meme.

Yet you waste your time with cryptic passive aggression?

 

[noharleyyet]

Trigger on dude...but the stalking needs to stop.

...out

 

[James Riley]

Trigger on dude...but the stalking needs to stop.

...out

I don't stalk on the www. That would be following you around and trying to engage. I try to avoid you because, yes, everything reminds you of a meme. Wait for it . . .

 

[Big Fin]

Wait for it . . .

Wait no longer.

 

[LuketheDog]

Wait no longer.

View attachment 68119

Man, that may be one of my all-time favorite movie characters...

 

[Big Fin]

Man, that may be one of my all-time favorite movie characters...

Mine too.