Friday, March 29, 2024
37.0°F

Don't give our land away

by Jerry Shriner
| September 22, 2010 9:00 PM

Psssst, wanna trade your North Idaho tree farm for a patch of rocks and cheat grass down south? Interested? Then Idaho Forest Group and M3 Development want to talk to you.

Here is how it will work. M3, a swell bunch of developers from Arizona, will trade their 11,000 acre sagebrush albatross north of Boise for 9,000 acres of BLM timber land (your land) in North Idaho. M3 will immediately sell the 9,000 acres to Idaho Forest Group (IFG). M3 will fill their carpet bag with about $16 million and head south to invest in a subdivision having stuck you with their 11,000 acre mistake.

But why would the BLM (you) consider such a deal? Well BLM has twice rejected previous iterations of this deal. Enter the senators and congressmen. It will be a lot like ITD widening the road in front of your house. They offer to buy the extra right of way but you say no. They are going to take it anyway and the rest is just details.

In this case you say no and they "go the legislative route." That is they get Congress to slip a clause into some larger bill (the skids are greased and the paperwork is in the drawer) that orders you, the BLM, (remember that is you) to proceed as though you are interested in the trade.

Now it gets a little tricky here. Congress won't order you to make the trade. That would be too crass. However you can read between the lines. The message is clear. This deal will be done and if it doesn't happen post haste your life will meet some sudden, unexpected problems.

But the timberland will still be here. It will just change from public (your) to private ownership and that would mean more property tax money won't it? Barely. In Kootenai County, for example it might mean as much as an extra $150 and less than $10,000 scattered across the 7 northern counties according to M3's calculations.

Yes, but IFG will log their new property and that will mean more timber-related jobs. Well not really according to IFG. The market does not justify greater production although it might be used for stability if other sources of raw material disappeared. In the meantime IFG will have closed the access door to 9,000 acres of timber to any competitor or start-up that might come along.

So far this does not sound real good you might say. I don't own the land anymore, the money has gone south and I am still waiting to see how I benefit.

Well how about this: IFG will let you hunt on the land and they will recognize various Native American treaty rights that may exist. Of course the price of your land will be decreased to compensate for these encumbrances on the land. And no, they don't agree to stay in business or otherwise retain the land. They will still have the right to sell to anyone with enough money and it will be up to you to enforce your rights with a new owner.

So what about the 11,000 acres I will own down south you ask? Surely in the big picture I get something from that. After all the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports the deal. Yes, but it turns out that RMEF relied solely on IDFG's opinion that the 11,000 acres is good winter habitat for elk and deer. We have elk and deer in NI you might remind them and their response will be "we never looked into that." (apparently IDFG didn't either) Plus your friends down south will now be able to hunt and hike on public land just like they did when it was private land. The big difference is you will now pay to manage the property.

Speaking of management, isn't this a good deal because it is cheaper and more efficient to manage one large parcel of land than several small ones that will be traded away? Maybe, maybe not. Few resources are currently spent on the NI property and the public might demand greater resources devoted to the recreational aspects of the land in the south.

Isn't it true that we have plenty of public land in NI so we won't really miss these 9,000 acres. These are parcels scattered around NI. You may not even realize you are hunting, fishing, riding, wood cutting or otherwise using one of them but they are disappearing. The Boise Foothills exchange took a bunch from NI and the Lochsa Exchange would take a bunch more. So yes we have lots of public land in NI but many of these scattered parcels are neighborhood gems that could disappear forever. Perhaps more important these parcels are your trading stock for improvements to benefit you right here in North Idaho. Who knows when something like Loffs Bay, Blackwell Island, Blue Creek or Mineral Ridge will come along. Then you will really want an inventory of trading material to secure a benefit for NI that you could not otherwise acquire.

In the end, the standard for approving this exchange is the public good; not the good of IFG or M3. These public lands are part of the foundation of our way of life in North Idaho and we pay a price for them. We endure lower wages and higher unemployment than the Treasure Valley and we do this, in part, to enjoy less traffic, more and closer access to outdoor recreation, and a generally quieter pace of life. Wouldn't it be foolish to give that away?

Jerry Shriner is a Coeur d'Alene resident.