No headline

Heather Scott loves controversy. In fact, she loves it so much she stirs it up even when it doesn't exist. First there was the Priest River veteran who had to be saved from the VA, then there were the armed thugs at the Malheur Refuge who needed to be “shielded” from law enforcement. Now we have the Clagstone conservation easement controversy. Dear Heather opposes the easement because public dollars would be used to purchase it instead of the landowner, Stimson Lumber Company, simply donating it out of the goodness of their heart. Well, Stimson Lumber Company is a for-profit business in the best tradition of free enterprise and the $12.6 million “donation” would have been a nice gift to conservation, but that's a lot of money. For the uninitiated, $12.6 million is the portion of the total value of the property attributed to the potential of the land to be sub-divided. If the land was located in a remote area away from roads, that value would be lower. With the conservation easement, Stimson would sell that portion of the 13,000 acre property's value to a land conservancy and keep the land as a working forest. The area would also be managed for wildlife habitat open to public walk-in hunting, be protected from sub-division and Stimson would get reduced property taxes. Hunters win, conservationists win, loggers win, Stimson wins, land sub-dividers loose. Yet, Heather opposes it based on some basic wing-nut principle against conservation easements. Good grief!

KEN THACKER

Sagle