Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (6320)	3/22/2006 12:21:09 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

National Forest land is best managed as a contiguous parcel. Little isolated holdings do not add value to them, by and large. The parcels I'm aware of get no management attention at all and are simply held on the books and maps. I can think of a few exceptions, especially along Wild and Scenic Rivers. The most notorious case I know of was an acquisition of fee title to an infamous structure along the Clearwater River in Idaho, known in previous lives as "Maggie's Bend" and "Betty's Steambath." It once had fourteen fully carpeted "bedrooms." During elk hunting season I used to see 4x4 trucks with a big bull elk in the back, waiting for the celebrating hunters to come out of their midday nap. Now Maggie's Bend is still a place, but it looks like a natural riverbank. The reverse is true also. That is, private holdings surrounded by National Forest lands should eventually be acquired and managed with adjacent lands. I've seen some very avoidable messes created by such holdings. The Nature Conservancy, an organization that puts its money where its mouth is, often helps in such cases.