The proposed Usal Forest conservation easement is emblematic of this entire scenario. A very small and select group of agency personnal will devote a very large sum of public money to bail out a private enterprise so that the private enterprise can continue to request more public funding for “restoration” activities that have not been proven to be effective or cost-effective, while producing virtually nothing from a marginally productive piece of timberland in the middle of nowhere. And this piece of timberland is already well protected without the expensive public easement, thus reducing the value of an easement. I wonder who conducts the appraisal for the Board?

My request is that the Conservation Board spend much less, and if they must spend, buy some land and add it to the state forest system, where some production can accompany public recreation and forest restoration. In this way, at least the public gets someting tangible for their hard-earned dollars.

Of course, none of what goes on is surprising, in a state whos population is over 80% urban, but also contains a massive acreage of the best protected wildland in the west. Those living in urban areas must believe that the entire state is in the same sad environmental condition as the urban area in which they live(suffer). They are very easy prey for environmental movements that believe that the ends justify the means by which they convince people to make donations (i.e. some truth mixed with abundant quantities of propaganda). Take, for example, the commonly cited claim that only 5% of the redwood forest remains. In fact, over 90% of the redwood forest remains. It’s not all old-growth, but a whole lot of it will be, once the protected forest in parks ages. Redwood forest is one of the best protected forest types in the entire United States, yet most people in urban areas probably believe that redwood is on the verge of extinction.

Speaking for myself, I love wild places and well-cared-for environments. But we need to maintain balance, govern and spend wisely. Private enterprises should not request or obtain public assistance to stay afloat.

Not much has changed today. There are a few more “loop” and “day hike” trails in a very limited number of areas. There are a couple of interconnected systems that now allow a walk that would take all day. I am not aware of any “wilderness” camping allowed.

From studying the current maps (and a week spent, on the ground, in the park this month) my guess is that 99% of the whole Redwood National Park, and the State Parks in and around them, are totally inaccessible to humans. With very few exceptions you cannot get more than a mile off of the main road and into the heart of the forest. If you really want to see the redwoods, gear up and go cross country. But don’t get lost. No one would ever find you.

Nearly 40 years after it’s creation the RNP does not provide any more access to view or enjoy the redwoods than was available at the start. In fact, in most areas there is less access. The infrastructure that has been built is falling apart and some facilities and access will be closed in the near future. Bob Smith is right.

Chris Young
Redding, CA

Sorting out the inaccuracies and contradictions in Mr. Greenhut’s text is easy picking because they are so abundant, Most important, though, is the ongoing suggestion, adopted no doubt from MRC’s misrepresentation, that there is no pressure on the Usal for development and thus no benefit to the State via its conservation easement. There is definitely pressure. It is of a different order and kind than for wild lands in Orange County, let’s say, and that’s why the appraisal is low–$395/acre. That’s how the process works. The Usal, easement is cheap and would allow permanent protection of 50,000 acres of contiguous forest land. This is not only not a fraud, it is a great deal for California taxpayers.

Compared to a 2005 MRC deal that jacked up the price the State had to pay them for 3,300 acres of steep forested land in Sonoma County to more than 5300/acre, the Usal is a colossal deal. (MRC got this grand price by going through the motions of subdivision that they had no intention of actually doing but knew would force up the appraisal. )

As for the transparency issue, Mr. Greenhut must have missed the Oct 6th, 2010 LA Times article outlining how MRC was secretly given a tax break by the state of over $30,000,000 in conjunction with their purchase of Pacific Lumber Company.

So much for saving the taxpayers money or for guaranteeing transparency. Or for anything resembling consistency.

Thank you.
David Simpson
Petrolia, CA 95558

The why of this is obvious. State “conservation” boards are filled with no-nothing environmentalists. They buy such land to stop production of forest products, not to “conserve” the environment. The notion that they are promoting “economic stability” is a bald-faced lie, inasmuch as their goal is to prevent all economic activity whatsoever on the land.

2009 Shelter Cove Resort Improvement District Salaries

Shelter Cove Utility Superintendant $108,989
Shelter Cove General Manager $105,341
Shelter Cove Utility Superintendant $97,544
Shelter Cove Construction Superintendant $82,377
Shelter Cove Construction Foreman $78,436
Shelter Cove Senior Utility Operator $71,723

High costs in your future? These managers voted in a quadrupaling of our utility fees several years ago, now we have to pay $37,400 to hook up a house to utilities in an area that is economically depressed, and where the managers are paid $100k/yr. to keep it that way.

http://lgcr.sco.ca.gov/CompensationDetail.aspx?entity=SpecialDistrict&id=12271206700&year=2009&GetCsu=False