If Trust for Public Land is buying this, why is the government paying for it?! If I want to buy, lets say 5,000 acres of this land, is the government going to buy it for me, too? I can see it now: " Hello, Ms. Finestien, this is Mr. Constituent and I want to buy some land in the Sierra Nevada's and was wondering when I could pick up a check to pay for it. Hello.....Hello...."
With opperating reserves in excess of $20 million, why doesn't the Sierra Klub pick up the tab on this?
KW - much if not all of the area is in AMA D-36, which has a Legislative Action Officer, Bill Dart. You can find an e-mail address for him at the D-36 page, http://www.ama-d36.org/Lao/ I believe SPI has a history of being OHV friendly, so there might be more to the story than is included in the report. If recreational opportunities are allowed but development is restricted, this deal could actually be OK for OHV enthusiasts.
According to SPI, the area is VERY remote and almost unusabel, hence the reason they want to rid themselves of the property. They used to be heavy into leasing their land to logging opperations but in the current tree-hugging cliamte, they are trying to save face and bow to the enviro's before the Church of Liberalism finds way's to steal, I mean, procure the property.
This is not good. I'd rather work with a timber company than a "Trust for Public Land" non-profit. The TPL is obviously a conservation organization and being a non-profit probably rely on serious grant and fund-rasing dollars. There best source of income will be from the environmental groups. There is no way they're going to let OHV's on their land.
I have a permit to ride in a private forest. The permits are granted by the owners through a local club. The club manages the trails and pretty much polices itself. You have to do work on the trails to get a permit, but the riding is great.