NC Lover,
What exactly is involved with TNC's donation in lieu of taxes? Does this donation go toward the same purposes that the tax dollar would go toward?
And what guarantee can you give that this donation would be given every year for the length of time that TNC owns land here? Do you think TNC began donated money to local government in Maine like they have done here? And what would the reason be for not making the full amount donation there and is there a possibility that the same thing could happen here? And is local government limited to use the "donation" in the same manner as TNC is limited to use donations to them? Or is TNC really limited in the use of the money donated to them? Are they obligated to use donations in a prescribed manner?

P.S.
The donation was $6,900.00 this year if I am correct.

I also spelled "lieu" wrong

To all you Nature Conservancy lovers out there:
Horseshoe Harbor is open to the public, if you've been out there, you would have noticed it on the sign. Mary McDonald donated it to the NC to make sure that others would have the chance to experience another beautiful place in the keweenaw.
I don't know about other townships and counties, but the NC makes a donation every year in leu of taxes to Grant Twp in the amount of what their taxes would be.

Earlier, I asked the question about the property tax equation with regard to the money that is being raised for the property acquisition on the shore of Lake Superior.

After reading the latest news about those conservation efforts for the mouth of the Gratiot River in Allouez Township, I opened my platbook to the page that describes the area. I looked several times at the platbook page before I realized something else about the conservation efforts, something that neither the Gazette nor Keweenaw Today addressed in their reports on the issue. I confess that I only came to this realization after repeated journeys to the mouth, via platbook, along the bumpy and dashed line that begins on page 57 and ends on page 56 at water's edge.

That realization is this: What happens to the properties that seem to be landlocked between the land to be conserved, the vast holdings of John and Jane Griffith, and the Copper Country State Forest? That my epiphany is in the form of a question should alert you to the fact that I don't have all the answers, though I am searching diligently for them. I tried to imagine approaching the mouth of the Gratiot from the turnaround at the end of the Seven Mile Point Road, down there past the Sunset Bay Campground, through soul-inspiring tag alder. I considered taking a trip like that this summer, as I would have to cross the area of Turtle Lake, home, no doubt, to some monster fish that would make the trip worthwhile. But I would still be at least a mile and then some away from the mouth of the Gratiot and I would have to cross private property held by David Pendell etal(107.7 acres), A-K Companies(331.2 acres), and four smaller lakeshore tracts that look like the developed tracts of land between the two metro areas of Eagle River and Eagle Harbor. These four tracts of ground are 2.8, 6.6,7.5,&9.1 acres in size.

What will be the eventual outcome of this land, the larger parcels described above, along with the four smaller tracts, no doubt the sites of getaways for other people who would like to have what the people owning developed tracts of ground have between the two metro areas I mentioned?

I don't know. But since I can't hear anyone complaining from where I sit right now, should I assume that all is well?

Back in November, while some of us were busy with deer season, the Detroit Free Press ran an article that had within it information that The Nature Conservancy would be opening additional offices in the Upper Peninsula.

The following is from that article:

---

Quote:

Its Michigan chapter of the conservancy has designated the Huron and Shiawassee headwaters area as a globally significant resource. The Nature Conservancy is a resource protection group with one of the largest systems of private nature sanctuaries in the world.
The designation provides incentive for a three-person office in northwest Oakland County, set to open by the end of this year. The conservancy also will open offices by springtime in Michigan's Upper Peninsula to protect the unique forest canopy, and near the west Michigan shoreline to safeguard sand dunes and inland savannas, said Helen Taylor, the conservancy's state director.

---

Here's an interesting newsbyte and link on property rights vs refuge restrictions I came across:

February 17, 2001
Test Case on Property Rights Challenges Wetland Curbs
By CAREY GOLDBERG

Anthony Palazzolo, on his property in Westerly, R.I., says "this land had rights" that were taken away with "the sweep of a pen." He hopes the United States Supreme Court will order the state to pay for its action.

WESTERLY, R.I., Feb. 13 — In a little over a week, Anthony Palazzolo — a former auto wrecker, 80-year- old father of six and the kind of outspoken, tenacious guy a lot of people around here call a character — is finally getting his day in the big court. And depending on how the United States Supreme Court rules, experts say, Mr. Palazzolo could enter the pantheon of plaintiffs whose cases have changed property rights law in America.

P.S. We have heard in the Gazette and onKeweenaw Today that land around the Gratiot is likely to be preserved. I like the definition of this type of conservation: It is a wise use, a controlled use of this area of the Keweenaw, for everyone to enjoy.

However, neither the i{Gazette} nor Keweenaw Today addressed the issue of property taxes. We heard how much land this project entails, how much money is being raised by the various parties for the land, and when the deal is likely to be concluded.
But we heard nothing about how this transaction will affect the tax base of Keweenaw County? Who can answer this question? And why should anyong belive that this is an issue that shouldn't matter?

Came across these letters to the editor in a Maine newspaper. So will the "need" for public access take into account the local property tax base?


Letters to the Editor http://www.bangornews.com/cgi-bin/article.cfm?storynumber=14723

It’s Crystal clear Thursday, April 20, 2000

It is encouraging to see Rep. Henry Joy tackle several unpleasant issues that other politicians are afraid to address. Environmental groups, backed with out-of-state money, are growing in power and appear to be laying plans to turn northern Maine into a huge park. You can even find an example of this in tiny Crystal, population 303.
The Nature Conservancy is the second largest landowner in Crystal with 2,993 acres valued at $473,624. This normally would result in a tax bill of $5,683. However, the conservancy is a nonprofit organization and is exempt from property taxes. It does make a ‘‘voluntary’’ $1,500 contribution to the town in lieu of taxes, but the remaining $4,183 is passed on to the taxpayers.
This is a growing problem as the conservancy has added to its holdings three times in the last three years. Where does it end?
I resent the fact that part of my tax dollars are indirectly going to support an environmental organization with which I have fundamental differences.
If the conservancy wants to buy land on the open market and preserve it, fine, but it should pay the taxes like everyone else. Does the Legislature have the courage to address this unfair issue?
Jamie Main
Crystal
Letters to the Editor Friday, April 28, 2000

TNC land in Crystal
I would like to reply to the letter by Jamie Main (BDN, April 20) concerning ownership of land in the town of Crystal by The Nature Conservancy. The largest expense of most small towns is the education of its children. I wonder if Main and Rep. Henry Joy choose to ignore that The Nature Conservancy’s ownership of property in Crystal adds little or nothing to the expenses of the town and that their contribution of $1,500 pays for much more than their needs for services?
Dennis Higgins

Just dropped in for a few moments and thought I would read a bit (OK and add some comments).

Jeff,
I think you are missing the point entirely. If TNC was to use PRIVATE funds for thier acquisitions, we would not be having this discussion. However, OUR tax dollars are being spent by these pseudo-environmentalist for one thing. Land acquisition and pseudo-government control of our lands with very loose regulations on public access. For instance, Horseshoe Harbor, from last I heard, was only accessible with a TNC representitive or specific permission for that visit and as for hunting I heard it was only allowed for indigineous people. Does this sound like public access to you? Not to me! Right now you and I may tread on any federal lands and camp, no matter what the ranger says. We may not be able to cut down trees or drive vehicles on it but it is OUR land, we paid for it and keep paying for it and we have full access to it. This is not the case for the NC (at least not for us normal folk).

I agree with you Walt. I think the trend toward a more participatory democracy at the local level on public and environmental policy issues is a good thing as the quote below from the Milwaukee Sentinel link you provided indicates.

"This is really a groundbreaking decision," said Buddy Huffaker, executive president of the Aldo Leopold Foundation.
"This really allows this part of Wisconsin to play an important role in setting the precedence for how conservation initiatives are planned and implemented in the future."

As for whether the Fish and Wildlife Service is, in your words, "incredibly dangerous", I have my doubts. In a vacuum of low participation and/or apathy however, I believe that those who have power will always exercise it(and perhaps abuse it) until people who sense their excesses and the lack of local power to oppose it make their voices heard in public.

And then landowners in Wisconsin are experiencing a like-phenomenon as those near the proposed Darby Refuge in Ohion. Guess who is one of the players here? The headline below suggests the way to work these things is to get public input before the planning has been happening...


Federal agency suspending environmental work to get more public input
Last Updated: Dec. 3, 1999 at 3:19:13 p.m.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -
http://www.jsonline.com/Wi/120399/wi--refugedelayed120399.asp
Plans for the 8,129-acre preserve located a few miles west of Portage - to be named after the Wisconsin ecologist - were announced in January.
But some landowners, local governments and state legislators have argued that it would consume too much farmland and hurt taxpayers by removing land from tax rolls.
The decision to delay the final environmental assessment came after residents stressed that there should be a greater effort to involve private landowners in plans to protect and restore the former marsh area, Hartwig said.


The article above is about the Aldo Leopold Refuge in Wisconsin. Another case of a federal agency collaborating with cons.groups to dicate policy before they spring it on the unwitting public.


The Fish and Wildlife Service is incredibly dangerous because they don't even require Congressional authorization to create a new wildlife refuge.
They can use condemnation to eliminate the farmers or landowners. This is happening right now near London, Ohio at the proposed Little Darby Creek Refuge and in Wisconsin near Baraboo at the proposed Aldo Leopold Wildlife Refuge.

Interesting point:
Quote, "What concerns me most however is TNC's role in the Keweenaw and I've seen no evidence of misbehavior here."

How many people in Ohio knew a refuge was being planned for them?

I like the rustic cabin idea, Walt. But if that should fall through, how about seasonally manicured tent sites complete with conveniently stacked firewood and pre-dug latrines?
Call it a weekly-rental real-estate scheme with benefits for all!

There is disturbing news when one looks at The Nature Conservancy's actions, combined with their partners, federal agencies, in Ohio, with regard to the Darby Refuge proposal. Events were happening without public scrutiny for many years before matters came to a head late last year.

As early as 1993, the USFWS was part of an Ohio Refuge Planning Team that included several environmental special interest groups including The Nature Conservancy.
In fact, federal officials knew they were in violation of sunshine laws, though they minimized their behavior by saying if they had made it public, the public would have started rumors. One key official made a point of telling an associate that they would need to distance themselves from TNC by cautioning against the use of any words that would suggest the USFWS was taking advice from TNC.

These facts are documented in service documents. Another document revealed a USFWS official meeting with county parks officials and TNC in 1997. In this meeting the groups assigned responsibilities to each other for different regions of their proposed refuge.
The document further states that, "Partners agreed that this program be brought to the Congressional level (and other appropriate political levels) before it be brought before the public."

The propaganda put forward was that the region's heritage was going to be preserved and the propaganda played off the common desire of everyone to care for the land. This planning went on at the same time that farmers in the area were receiving awards for their outstanding environmental standards. Whose heritage was anyone trying to preserve if area farmers were receiving awards from the same federal agencies that were meeting to carve up the farmland?

In the style of Oliver North, one federal official defended his agency's actions! He said that it is often the conversation groups that start the process. The Nature Conservancy had been working on a refuge idea, but the federal agency was the outfit that started the official proposal. Indeed, the refuge proposal would never been made had TNC not initiated it.

And there is everything to indicate that this practice is not the exception, but the norm. TNC initiates actions, and federal agencies begin the official action to bring TNC's wishes to fruition. Based on the words of an attorney who is representing people opposed to the Ohio refuge, another case involving sunshine laws resulted in an injunction prohibiting the work of other secret meetings from being used.



I believe Mr. Tolksdorf said he would like to sell the point property to:

1: The DNR
or2: An out-of-state buyer

And as far as what I'd like to see done, I would like to situate the first rustic cabin there, the first rustic cabin of a new business that will open in the Keweenaw. I get first dibs on the first open weekend.

Could be that I like to argue.
You don't happen to drive a car with a remote keyless entry---with panic button?

Walt: Clearly you are a man who likes to argue so let me reiterate what I said about "some" of the Property Rights links. There appears to be far more heat than light in their pseudo-journalistic diatribes against TNC, the American government and others and I stand by that perception. I do not, however, disallow the possibility some TNC operatives may have used excessively manipulative practices with respect to acquiring land in Maine or Ohio. Quite frankly I don't know. What concerns me most however is TNC's role in the Keweenaw and I've seen no evidence of misbehavior here. Horseshoe Harbor, as I understand it, allows public access for hiking, fishing and hunting. The Gazette recently ran a complimentary piece about the organization "putting its money where its mouth is" with respect to sharing the property tax burden of Grant Township. I can't speak for Tina Hall or what she was implying about the Tolksdorf purchase of Keweenaw Point from IP. I suggest you ask her.
Personally I hope Mr. Tolksdorf does what he publicly stated he would do. Sell it the State of Michigan for public access by all rather than parceling it up for private buyers.
What would you like to see happen with the Point purchase?

An interesting response to the questions, but you didn't come close to addressing the public money/private money debate of the second post and the apparent discrepancy in The Nature Conservancy's actions in Maine where they used private money to great advantage to obtain their goal. Certainly, the first post clearly indicates the potential for problems--a fact we shouldn't ignore.

Both Forrest on the Rantings side and you here on the Opinions side belittle the links to the property rights site, albeit Forrest does it with language more suited to Rantings. You both disparage property rights advocates while you say nothing about The Ohio Nature Conservancy's site use of a poll that suggests Ohioans wanted a refuge, a refuge on hold for now, but certainly on someone's burner. The truth of that matter is that the property owners where the refuge was proposed do not want the refuge and they have made that abundantly clear though the senator from Ohio seems to be ignoring the property owners interests. The question should be: Was propaganda used to instill in the Ohioans a desire for a refuge? The Conervancy's site there ignored the property owners while it made much of the wishful thinking of the population polled.

What did you think of the Eminent Domain link, written objectively by a lawyer familiar with the issue? His words are echoed in the fears and frustrations of the people who populate the stories in the property rights links.

Interesting too, your use of quotation marks around the word "journalists" I wonder how you define the term. At any rate, yes, there had been a kind of paranoid response around here to the selling of the acreage at the tip to Glen Tolksdorf. For example, in the Keweenaw Today articles when it quoted Tina Hall of TNC---" We're already out of the game. They're going to start systematically selling all the property starting with the tip, going forth in as small parcels as possible - one at a time," a certain amount of paranoia was clearly evident. For what else could such a blanket statement be but a play on the fears of the people of the area, a play on the fears that were brought to the fore with the issue of Mount Bohemia?

And as I pointed out at the end of my second post, Mr. Abramson, from IP put that paranoid fear to rest with his words: "The assumption that there is some imminent large-scale land transaction that's about to take place is really just that - an assumption."

As far as anyone hijacking the land use planning process, watchfulness should certainly be a characteristic that everyone should bring to the table. Participants should consider any and all proposals with care and thought, test everything, hold onto the good, discard the bad, and have enough information to be able to complete that task. There surely isn't any paranoia in anyone questioning everyone that comes to that table. Not to do so would be folly.

Walt: Is this an organization-sponsored policy or simply excessive zeal by a local chapter member. As the letter from TNC indicates, the organization does not approve of strong arm tactics. This case is from the early 1990's and TNC has grown considerably since then. My experience is that when individuals or organizations gain more power, along with it come tendencies to abuse this power. I hope that is not the case with TNC, a conservation organization I've always had great respect for.
Just to help you separate the wheat from the chaff though, there is an interesting series on "paranoia" at Salon.com this week and I highly recommend the link below which looks into how subtly paranoia can be cultivated by "journalists" who know that paranoia sells and sells very well. I don't question all of these people's motives nor their basic cause(some may well have been wronged in the past by the government or another organization), but some of those property-rights advocate links provided recently on the Anonymous Rants side of this forum are, in my opinion, absent of specific documentation and guilty of the sort of mental manipulation one might term "paranoid propaganda".

Much ado was made about the sale of IP/LSLC land to Glen Tolksdorf last year. Fears were that much of LSLC land would be sold to private owners. Tina Hall of The Nature Conservancy said that the international corporation that she represents would be excluded from the bidding process for Hunter's Point.

Keweenaw Today reported it this way: The sale may be soon be followed by a closed bid sale of the area west of Copper Harbor known as Hunters Point, which has been independently appraised at $1.7 million. Earlier this week a representative of The Nature Conservancy said a sealed bid process would exclude the conservancy from competing for the property, since the group is limited to purchases at appraised, or fair market, value. (Story: "International Paper Sells Keweenaw tip acreage to local realtor")

TNC, an international corporation, would have us believe that they are less than equal in the field of real estate buying and selling. One need look no further than Maine and a bidding process for 1% of the state's land base that was owned by International Paper, or IP, as they have become known around here.
In that bidding process, TNC (does anyone say "TNC" when they speak of them?) entered the bidding process with a rich fund at its disposal, and was able to gather 35.1 million dollars to facilitate the purchase.

Additionally, in Maine, IP didn't know TNC was a bidder for some of their lands. They knew TNC was interested because TNC had sent representatives to a tour that was conducted.

---

Quote:

"IP also knew that the bid submitted by Wagner Woodlands was probably done for a client, but the connection between Wagner and TNC was not revealed to the company." Source: The New Australian,
"Too Close for Comfort," By Mary Adams,No. 101, 4-10 January 1999

---

On the other half of this forum, a debate about The Nature Conservancy is on-going. Since The Nature Conservancy has opened an office in this area, and since they have already possess land in the area, and since they make every indication that they will be an influence in the region, I investigated one of the sites linked to in Anonymous Rantings.

That link is at:http://cowboysandcattlecountry.50megs.com/TNC%20frames.htm

You click on the "State" section in the left column, click on "Illinois" in the state spreadsheet, and you arrive at what I've posted below:


Nature Conservancy's Condemnation Threat Letter
May 26, 1993

Professor Dr. Dieter Kuhn
Temmler Werke
Temmlarstrasse 2
3550 Marburg
GERMANY

Dear Dr. Kuhn:

The process of assembling the land necessary to create Illinois' largest federal wildlife refuge has been underway for several years. This project has been particularly successful because it has been a joint venture of government agencies and private organizations. On the agency side, both state and federal funding have been consistent, so that over half of the 60,000-acre refuge has
been assembled.

During this period the joint venture partners have been fortunate in being able to deal with very cooperative local landowners who see this project as being in the best interest of the community as well as their own.

The government agencies' intention during the acquisition phase of this project has been to deal only on a willing seller basis; this commitment has been made to local landowners. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, like all other federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain which allows the use of condemnation to acquire lands and interests in lands for the public good. As you know, The Nature Conservancy has, starting in 1987, made numerous efforts to contact you
by letter, by phone, and through your agent, Mr. Clay, in an effort to discuss some basis for the acquisition of your property in Pulaski County.

If your land is not acquired through voluntary negotiation, we will recommend its acquisition through condemnation. This is clearly an alternative which we do not prefer, but feel compelled to exercise since we seem to have exhausted all other avenues. Alternative options are yet available and we certainly would like to pursue them. Please let me know by 30 June if you are willing to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the Pulaski County property.

Sincerely,

Albert E. Pyott
Director
The Nature Conservancy
Illinois Field Office
70 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


June, 1993

Congressman Glenn Poshard
110 North Division Street
Carterville, IL 62918
RE: Cache River Refuge

Dear Congressman Poshard:

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter one of my clients, Dr. Dieter Kuhn, received from The Nature Conservancy regarding property he owns within the boundaries of the Cache River Refuge. As you may remember you and I have had several conversations and discussions regarding the ultimate goal of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and others concerning the Cache River Refuge. It has always been my belief that the parties involved in the project were being less than
candid with the general public and the land owners regarding the ultimate goal of the project. One of the recurring themes throughout the various public meetings and private meetings has always been that we will only work with "willing sellers" and will not use eminent domain to obtain property. In fact on several occasions both the Federal and State agencies have assured me that they have no intention of using eminent domain in order to obtain their goals. You
may remember that one of those meetings took place in your Carterville office when we met with representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department (the "Department") to discuss limiting the scope of the refuge. At that meeting I was told that the Department would not use eminent domain and that the refuge would total approximately 43,000 acres. It is extremely disturbing to me to see that The Nature Conservancy believes that it can intimidate a land owner who is not
local by threatening to "recommend" that the Department proceed with eminent domain when The Nature Conservancy knows that it is not the position the Department advocated during the public meetings and federal register comment period. In fact, it is my understanding that the Department has consistently represented to Congress that even though it has the power of eminent domain it will not utilize that power in order to establish a federal refuge.

I might also tell you that this is not the only instance that has come to my attention in the past two years where either The Nature Conservancy, the Department, Illinois Department of Conservation or Ducks Unlimited, hereafter ("the unholy four") have utilized the threat of eminent domain or intimidation in order to insure that they either purchase property or through their conduct
prohibit sales to third parties. In addition, I can tell you from personal experience that after the first wave of land buying by the various agencies at least nine homesteads located in the refuge area have been sold and removed.
After the sale the Department requested that the local power cooperative remove its power lines. Those nine homesteads will never again be utilized for people who purchase gasoline, insurance, food, and the other necessities of life in the area. Unfortunately, it now appears that what some of the leaders of the local Farm Bureau and I predicted is coming to pass. The economic base of Pulaski County and the surrounding area is slowly being eroded and is not being replaced by the "boom" tourism that was predicted. It would be interesting to have a
follow up economic study done to see what affect the refuge has had on the local economy. I'm certain that if cost is a consideration in the follow up study that I can convince several of the local residents to split the cost. I believe you should be interested in what has truly occurred before the Department forges ahead with the Cache River Refuge and others proposed in Illinois.

In conclusion if the unholy four are allowed to continue on their present course it appears that the Refuge will not be 43,000 acres as represented to you and I in our meeting with the Department but instead will be 60,000 acres and the entire community and economic base of Pulaski County will have been decimated. In addition to requesting that you meet with me in your Carterville office to discuss this matter I am also requesting that you ascertain if the Department
intends to change its policy regarding eminent domain so that I can properly advise my client.

Very truly yours,
Ronald E. Osman
R. Osman & Associates, Ltd.
Attorneys at Law
1602 W. Kimmel
PO Box 939
Marion, Illinois 62959


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


June 17, 1993

Mr. Albert E. Pyott
Director
The Nature Conservancy
70 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603

Dear Albert:

As you well know, I have supported the development of the Cypress Creek national Wildlife Refuge, including securing millions of dollars for land acquisition through the federal appropriations process. I believe this is a worthy project.

However, I am alarmed at the wording in a letter from you to a Dr. Kuhn, a landowner in the proposed boundary of the refuge. I want to state in absolutely unmistakable terms that if I ever again see or hear the Nature Conservancy or any other group use the words "eminent domain" or "condemnation" to threaten private landowners, I will do everything possible to rescind the federal appropriations which support this project. I will not stand for any use of these types of tactics for land acquisition.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,
Glenn Poshard
Member of Congress


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


July 9, 1993

Professor Dr. Dieter Kuhn
Temmler Werke
Temmlerstrasse 2
3550 Marburg
Germany

Dear Dr. Kuhn:

I would like to apologize to you for the letter you were sent on June 1 by Al Pyott, the Director of The Nature Conservancy in Illinois.

There are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for The Nature Conservancy to tell landowners that it will encourage involuntary condemnation proceedings against them by government agencies. And, of course, we have no authority to pursue such action independently. In this particular case, the government agencies involved as well as The Nature Conservancy have publicly stated that condemnation will not be used as a means of creating the wildlife refuge in Pulaski County.

The letter from Mr. Pyott was also contrary to our philosophy of business -- which is to work only with willing sellers. We are taking steps to make sure that such incidents do not happen again in the future. I hope you will accept our apology.

Sincerely,

James C. Sawhill, The Nature Conservancy
President & Chief Executive Officer
International Headquarters

1815 North Lynn Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


July 8, 1993
Arlington Virginia

The Nature Conservancy regrets the unauthorized letter sent by Al Pyott, the Director of The Nature Conservancy in Illinois, to Dr. Dieter Kuhn telling Dr. Kuhn that TNC would recommend acquiring his land through condemnation. We have no authority to influence condemnation decisions, and we do not encourage government agencies to use involuntary condemnation as a means of acquiring land. It is also contrary to our philosophy of business -- which is to work only with willing sellers.

In this particular case, the government agencies involved as well as The Nature Conservancy have publicly stated that condemnation will not be used as a means of creating the wildlife refuge in Pulaski County. We are taking steps to make sure that such incidents do not happen again in the future. We have sent a letter of apology to Dr. Kuhn.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poshard draws line for environmental group
by Martin Rose

A Southern Illinois congressman has drawn the line of proper conduct for an environmental group seeking land for the Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge by threatening to withdraw support for future refuge acquisition money.

Illinois U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) officials have disavowed efforts by The Nature Conservancy (NC) to wrest refuge-area farmland from Dieter Kuhn, a professor and absentee Pulaski County landowner living in Germany. In a May 26 letter to Kuhn, Illinois NC Director Albert Pyott noted his group's "numerous efforts" since 1987 to contact Kuhn regarding sale of his land, and warned that "if your land is not acquired through voluntary negotiation, we will recommend its acquisition through condemnation" and use of USFWS' eminent domain purchase rights.

Following a complaint from Ronald Osman, Marion attorney and refuge-area farmer, Carterville Democrat Rep. Glenn Poshard wrote a letter to Pyott reiterating support for USFWS acquisition funding for Cypress Creek but warned Pyott that: "If I ever again see or hear the Nature Conservancy or any other group use the words 'eminent domain' or 'condemnation' to threaten private landowners, I will do everything possible to rescind the federal appropriations which support this project. I will not stand for any use of these types of tactics for land acquisition," Poshard told Pyott.

USFWS and NC have been interested in acquiring a roughly 80-acre tract owned by Kuhn in the refuge's purported "core area," Osman said. He reported the tract, located on the Cache River, virtually "controls the drainage" in the area and is key to USFWS' goal of obtaining "26,000 acres of the best farm ground in Southern Illinois."

American Farm Bureau Federation land rights specialist Jon Doggett charged NC nationwide has used condemnation threats in efforts to acquire lands for USFWS. But he reported "they don't put things in writing," providing written documentation of their actions. Osman said he was "tickled to death" that the NC had written a letter to Kuhn.

Refuge officials are authorized to purchase up to 35,320 acres, said Jerry Updike, Cypress Creek refuge manager and USFWS employee. Over the past three years, USFWS has acquired 10,400 acres from willing sellers, and has received no "negative feedback" said Updike. USFWS has stressed "there are no plans to condemn land from unwilling sellers" and twice has refused requests to exercise eminent domain to settle title on refuge-area lands.

"We've went on record saying we would not condemn land here, and that policy has not changed," Updike said. "(The Kuhn property) is an area Nature Conservancy has been really interested in, and they kind of took it upon themselves to try to force the issue a bit. If they were to come to us and say 'We've gotten no response and we recommend condemnation," we'd say, "No. We're not going to do it.'"

If landowners wish to sell, USFWS authorizes an appraisal by regional agency personnel who generally base price on three comparable area land sales of similar acreages. The USFWS price generally is non-negotiable, Updike said, and landowners may 'take it or leave it."

I'm not sure why the allegation has been made in Anonymous Rantings that the links provided contain "kooks", "wackos", "extremists" and the like. The above illustration clearly indicates that the people of the area should be aware of the many faces of The Nature Conservancy seen by others in other states. Even more so, perhaps, the people should be aware of this, as many property owners live in other states, like this doctor in Germany.

I have been asked by a gentleman in Finland to post an inquirey on the Paananen surname.His ancestors destination was Hancock,Michigan.Juho(John)Pannanen and Martha and thier son Juho did migrate here to Upper Michigan in 1909.Please email me if you have any information.
Thank you,
Alicia

Steve, Dan and...uhh, Sewer Rat(if that's your real name, you should spend a Sunday afternoon slapping your folks silly until they tell you what da heck dey might have been t'inkin' or drinkin' when dey baptized ya!):
I can only add this to your decomposition debate. If Twin Cities news stories are a useful antennae, switching from septic tanks to sewer systems has become a big debate along Minnesota's Superior North Shore communities as well.
Nobody wants to be accused of poisoning Da Big Lake it seems and personal guilt may prove to be a useful catalyst in making some good technological changes happen.