[Vision2020] This Deal's Beauty is in Eye of the Landholder

[Tom Hansen]

Courtesy of today's (July 21, 2011) Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

------------------------------
OUR VIEW: This deal's beauty is in eye of the landholder

By Lee Rozen, for the editorial board
July 21, 2011

When Western Pacific Timber bought some logged-over land near Lolo Pass along U.S. Highway 12 in Idaho, it intended to trade it to the Forest Service for low elevation timberland ready for harvest. The Upper Lochsa land is a checkerboard of private and public ownership. The Forest Service wanted to trade to eliminate the checkerboard with its likelihood of future logging in a wild and scenic area and to get rid of many isolated pockets of National Forest land elsewhere that it finds difficult to manage.

Almost no one liked this proposal except the Forest Service and Western Pacific.

Commissioners in Idaho County, home of the checkerboard, didn't like it, because it took thousands of acres of taxable private timberland from their county. Many in Latah County didn't like it because thousands of acres of public timberland suddenly would go into the hands of a private company, one of whose owners has provided critics millions of reasons to doubt his ethics. Some feared it hearkened the end of the Palouse Ranger District.

After many months of hearings and studies, the Forest Service proposed that it would trade for some of the Western Pacific land and buy the rest.

Trouble is, as you may have heard, the federal government has no money to spend on such things.

So, the Idaho County commissioners have suggested that, instead, the Forest Service simply trade Western Pacific other national forest land in Idaho County for the Western Pacific land the Forest Service wants. They suggest an acre-for-acre trade, not a value-for-value trade. It will take another year of environmental review before the deal can be settled.

Many are looking at this and supporting it. Sure, the Forest Service wouldn't get full value for the land it would give up, but it wouldn't have to pay for what it wants, either. The Idaho County budget wouldn't be harmed. Latah County residents wouldn't lose recreational access to the National Forest land here.

While we still think the trade should be made on a value-for-value basis, in the end, this will be one of those imperfect deals it is sometimes necessary to do when you no longer have all the money in the world.

------------------------------

Thoughts?

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
 
"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change and the Realist adjusts his sails."

- Unknown

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110721/10b607fd/attachment-0001.html