Checkerboard private land to be logged, subdivided

Paul in Idaho

Paul in Idaho

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
848
Location
Southwest Idaho
What are everyone's thoughts on this? It sounds like a land swap is or was being considered too.

Western Pacific Timber LLC plans to log portions of its 39,000 acres in the upper Clearwater Basin.

Spokesman Andy Hawes said Western Pacific Timber has signed a contract with a Montana company to cut and haul timber near Moose Lake and is looking to subdivide one of its tracts adjacent to U.S. Highway 12 near Powell into eight to 10 plots.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/...m-to-subdivide.html?sp=/99/103/#storylink=cpy
 
Last edited:
I was hoping some of the Idaho dudes would jump in on this.......since I live closer to this area than most Idaho residents, here's my 2 cents.

Powell Idaho is very nice country and it would be a shame to see these private timberland sections subdivided. Having the Federal Government print money to buy this land and then give it to the USFS to "manage" is not the best idea.

Good opportunity for some sportsmen's groups to step up to the plate and make something happen. Here is a good current conservation effort that could serve as a template for this situation. http://flatheadbeacon.com/2014/03/11/haskill-basin-project-ranked-as-top-priority-in-budget/

What do you Idaho dudes think?
 
Josaaayyy, do you still live in Idaho? Or did you move back to San Francisco, to find work?

Seems like guy's on this site like to complain a lot, but when it comes down to actually getting involved........crickets.
 
BigHornRam said:
Seems like guy's on this site like to complain a lot, but when it comes down to actually getting involved........crickets.
Click to expand...

I'd say that this site has a higher percentage of guys who get involved than most any other hunting forum out there. That said, it's true that only a sliver of the the total number of hunters actually do anything beyond complain. That is, unless it's their ox getting gored. ;)
 
Oak said:
I'd say that this site has a higher percentage of guys who get involved than most any other hunting forum out there. That said, it's true that only a sliver of the the total number of hunters actually do anything beyond complain. That is, unless it's their ox getting gored. ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking time to comment on my comment Oak. Care to comment on the issue at hand?;)
 
Have you submitted your Weminuche comments yet? You have until Monday. Do you have any issue with holding land management agencies accountable for management decisions that put bighorn sheep at risk, or is it solely the responsibility of the NGOs to mitigate that risk?
 
I prefer the buyout method over the "get your f***ing range maggots off my public lands" comment method. It's more effective.
 
Last edited:
BigHornRam said:
I prefer the buyout method over the "get your f***ing range maggots off my public lands" comment method. It's more effective.
Click to expand...

No accountability for the land management agencies. Got it.

What if the permittee doesn't want to be bought out?
 
Oak said:
No accountability for the land management agencies. Got it.

What if the permittee doesn't want to be bought out?
Click to expand...
Go to plan B (the "get your f***ing range maggots off my public lands" comment method)

What about the original topic of this thread Oak? Do you prefer the Government and it's no account land management agencies to buyout these checkerboard properties with money they don't have? Or NGO's to buy conservation easements to remove development and provided public access?
 
I think I understand most of the thought process involved on all sides of this, but that doesn't mean that there is a solution.

That's a LOT of checkerboard land that right now sportsmen have full access to. Swapping it around and consolidating the private vs public holdings would almost certainly reduce access. It also would still leave the problem of potential subdividing it up.

Pretty hard to blame the lumber company for wanting to make a bit of money by subdividing some of it up. I would imagine it would increase the value considerably.

Not sure many NGO's (even RMEF) have the kind of cash sitting around to buy that much conservation easements though.

My guess is that it is probably going to go just like the current plan by the lumber company. Timber a bunch of their property and subdivide some of it.
 
How are they going to build logging roads across the public forest service lands? Are there already enough roads in there that they can actually get their timber out of the checkerboarded land?
 
BigHornRam said:
Go to plan B (the "get your f***ing range maggots off my public lands" comment method)
Click to expand...

When can we go to that method? Any time we feel like it? Who will be willing to go this route? Wild sheep NGOs?

BigHornRam said:
What about the original topic of this thread Oak? Do you prefer the Government and it's no account land management agencies to buyout these checkerboard properties with money they don't have? Or NGO's to buy conservation easements to remove development and provided public access?
Click to expand...

I know nothing about the area. Do you support the private property rights of Plum Creek? I believe that if the land is important to you then the NGO route has more chance of success. There is no chance in hell that the Government is going to buy those lands. What is the real risk of development of those lands if they are subdivided (access easements, etc)?
 
I think selling house sites in the area if its subdivided will be a challenge; its not much of a tourist destination, has miserable winter/snow conditions and highway 12 isn't known for being a fun commute.

Hunters in the area probably give little thought to the land issues because they currently have access to the private timber lands and really there are very few people hunting it for elk and deer anymore.

That said I would like the see the timber lands converted to public ownership, I'm just not sure what the best route is. Some of the land trades that have been discussed are not looked at very favorably in the areas that would be affected.
 
BigWhore said:
Josaaayyy, do you still live in Idaho? Or did you move back to San Francisco, to find work?

Seems like guy's on this site like to complain a lot, but when it comes down to actually getting involved........crickets.
Click to expand...


What do you want commented on?

The complete ineffectiveness of dumb-ass Congressman Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) as he continues to chase his personal ambitions of running for leadership roles in the House?

Or, should I comment on the ineffectiveness of the Boozing Mormon, Senator Crapo (R-Idaho) as he continues to spend more time trying not to get caught for a second DUI?

Neither one of those two individuals gives a flyin' flip about managing public lands for the benefit of hunters and other outdoor recreational uses.

So, please BigWhore, please tell me what comments you need?


And, if you want to know where I have spent my energies this week, it is on Wild Sheep issues, and hopefully helping to lay the groundwork for future benefits of getting hunters to be able to hold land mangers accountable for using science and not allowing Welfare Ranchers to destroy My Public Lands.


And, if you really care about my thoughts on the checkerboard at the top of the Lochsa, I hope the FS doesn't get rushed into some extortion landswap where they trade productive and valuable forest land to a rape and cut timber company for lands that have been decimated to feed some unproductive mill.

So, how come you don't care about wild sheep issues and provide comments on the Weinmuche?
 
History always repeats itself, often the same story, just a different location and new characters. And in telling the story, some of us age ourselves.

In the early 1990s, the Gallatin River Drainage looked almost exactly like that Lochsa map. All checkerboard. We were lucky that at the time, Plumb Creek allowed hunting on their lands and access to the Federal lands inside the checkerboard.

Along comes some dudes from Oregon, Tim Blixeth, the McDougal brothers, and a few other characters of varying reputations. They buy the lands from Plumb Creek in early 1992.

By 1993, hunters are put on notice that lands will be sold, and/or subdivided, and/or logged, and eventually made off limits to public recreation. Mad scramble. Not only at risk are the 90,000 acres of former Plumb Creek lands, but the many hundreds of thousands of acres of Forest Service land that stood behind those gates.

That year, the MT delegation, under some serious heat from hunters and in cooperation with the USFS, RMEF, and many other groups, a deal is struck. 16,000 acres of public lands are traded for almost 38,000 acres of timber company lands. It happens in a manner that eliminates a lot of checkerboard in some of the higher recreation use areas.

The deal is funded with land, timber receipts, and money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The deal almost dies a thousand deaths as so many competing interests are trying to make it "perfect" for them, at the expense of all others. Tempers flare, but the deal gets done. It includes some term certain agreements for access across other timber company lands, unless sold.

Roll forward to 1997 and the access agreements are expiring. The largest portion of the prime hunting grounds on the crest of the Gallatin and Madison Ranges will be lost to public access.

The MT delegation is again put in the hot box to get a deal done. This time, we are to give up 29,000 acres, including the prime location that is now "The Yellowstone Club." We are to get 54,000 acres in return. More whining and sniveling happens. The deal is so close to dying, the delegation tells the hunters that odds are we will be losing our hunting spots. Finally, the fringe operators realize they will be hung in the streets of Bozeman if they continue their protests, and the mainstream groups push the ball across the goal line.

As a result of this, the checkboard pattern on much of the Gallatin is gone. We have given up, much of the Bangtails. We have given up the amazing ground that would become a billionaire's club. We have lost Jack Creek.

But, we have all the rest of the Gallatin, Madison, and Bridger Ranges now accessible in perpetuity. If not for the hunters and their groups, both local and national, these deals would have never got done.

And without Land and Water Conservation Fund seed money, the exchanges would have required huge amounts of land to be traded from the public to balance the scales. There would be a lot less hunting in SW Montana and hundreds of thousands of acres off limits to all recreationists.

Here we are, over 15 years later and LWCF is up for reauthorization next year. If LWCF does not get reauthorized, the possibility of these Idaho lands ever ending up in public ownership gets pretty low.

None of these are ever easy. Getting groups to put aside differences and settle on something good, rather than demanding perfection, is the biggest challenge. Well maybe the new climate against public lands has emerged as even a greater challenge.

We had to let some of the lands be logged prior to receiving them, or accept less land. Trees grow back, so that was a no brainer for hunters, but almost killed the deal for some who cannot accept logging. Some lands that were sold and subdivided before the deals were completed are still pieces I drive by and have a feeling of "what could have been." Once they are subdivided and sold, they are gone forever.

I hope the issue gets solved.
 
Big Fin said:
History always repeats itself, often the same story, just a different location and new characters. And in telling the story, some of us age ourselves.

.
Click to expand...

Except this is a bunch of the same characters; old Plum Creek lands and a different company formerly ran by Blixseth with the same plan/agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Logging company fined!!
Replies
11
Views
811
Ten Bears
T
JoseCuervo
Opportunity to Improve Hunting Access in Idaho, MT, Wy, Or
Replies
10
Views
2K
Ten Bears
T

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
112,938
Messages
2,004,733
Members
35,903
Latest member
Jg722

Share this page

Back
Top