Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Breaking: 320,000 Acres of Forest Protected in Landmark Deal

nature.org — In one of the most significant conservation sales in U.S. history, The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land have preserved 320,000 acres of pristine forest in western Montana that provide valuable habitat for species and sustainable local business for people.

Bury

burkinaboy 103 days ago, made popular 102 days ago

905 diggs
digg it

granolajoe, on 06/30/2008, -5/+41Excellent. So glad to hear this. I remember just a short while ago there were states wanting to build roads through forests like these and open them to logging. At least Montana is protected.
- Yez70, on 07/01/2008, -3/+14All logging is not evil. Selective logging is actually good for the renewable environment we all desire. I hope this new land is managed with that point in consideration. I'm tired of hearing about forest fires because some idiot decided it's too expensive to clear the brush and overgrowth on federal lands.
  
  Balance is crucial.
- rz8472, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Don't forget privatizing national parks to make them "profitable"...
  
  The point of having national parks was never to generate profit.
- niradg, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3It isn't the states, it's the BLM under Bush. It's been turned into a vehicle for corporate land-grabs.
  http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_researc ...
- gothrus, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Yes, it a miracle that forests not managed by logging companies ever survived for so long.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I wish people knew what was actually right and wrong. My god it's difficult listening to people fumble about over issues that will work to the detriment of themselves. ... *sighs*.
  
  Just go read Michael Chrichton's "STate of Fear" please and thank you.
joesolomon, on 06/30/2008, -8/+8Congrats!
- DearSergio, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1OMG, what an amazing advance forward for conservation! 320,000 acres! That's like .5% of Montana!
  - DearSergio, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I lied. That's 0.014% of all the acreage in the United States, and only 0.34% of Montanas acreage. Keep up the good work...
crxvfr, on 06/30/2008, -16/+7So long as it doesn't fall into the hands of the UN as a World Heritage Site.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/tabor/050330
Michiko280, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6This is fantastic!! So good to hear :)
burkinaboy, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2Scroll down and check out the photo slideshow... amazing photo of an old guy with an axe surrounded by wood. You'll know it when you see it. :)
- haydesigner, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1http://www.nature.org/popups/images/plumcreek_6.jp ...
  - BoonTobias, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1*****, get in the car!!
- D4CH, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Truely amazing, he's like .. standing there.. Wow!
- holzp, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2And the photograph is © Ted *Wood*
- dfsjdkflasjk, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Yea, ***** that old man. He doesn't deserve to have a job, our trees are more important than our livelihood.
  - SmartfulDodger, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Hey dfsjd..., did you see the right photo? "Bud Moore practices sustainable logging on his land"
    
    There's a big difference between commercial logging and sustainable logging. The old man looks like he's doing just fine.
Mathieugothax, on 07/01/2008, -6/+4Amazing, great news! It makes me really happy to hear such a good thing!
life38, on 07/01/2008, -7/+2Renewable resources for generations to come.
mayavada, on 07/01/2008, -11/+1"Sustainable timber management": That sounds like Bush wanting to give national forest to the logging industry in the interest of 'protecting' it. That means it a private logging reserve supposedly under altruistic management. The Nature Conservancy shouldn't be beyond scrutiny. In a lot of cases, they seem to be most interested in protecting some land to drive up the value of adjacent, developable land. This is a press release. Bury.
- DaDrake, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Sustainable timer management is the way to go. Its a renewable resource and it can be done without harming wild life populations. Furthermore, most people aren't too happy about the other option (huge ass mother f*cking fire).
phreak79, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6Always great to hear good news stories where the environment is concerned. Few and far between but all the more precious when they do come.
- crxvfr, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1My first comment about UN Heritage sites was buried. Most people don't know or believe the UN controls many of our national parks, ...they just snatched up 8 more places from around the world. http://digg.com/travel_places/8_New_Natural_Wonder ...
matt510, on 07/01/2008, -3/+53Stop titling things "Breaking!" If you want to be a sensationalist, go to the MSM. Besides, you aren't even "breaking" into anything. This is the internet, not a daily soap opera.
- idavidtang, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1An appropriate use for it would be something like this: "Breaking, ____ (country) got nuked!"
  - arjie, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7I'm going to go with:
    Braking: For when you want your car to stop.
- D14BL0, on 07/01/2008, -2/+10I don't think you understand why Digg doesn't like "breaking". It's not for any sensationalism (since, you know, "breaking" isn't sensationalist language, it just announces that it's new news), but because of the fact that by the time it hits the front page, it's an old article.
  
  Look. At the time this hit the front page, it's already 14 hours old. It isn't breaking news anymore.
  
  You joined the hate bandwagon, but you don't even know why.
  - matt510, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5So, I have to have the same reasons the rest of Digg does?
    
    I would argue that "breaking," as it is most frequently used in the MSM, IS sensationalist.
    
    I would also argue that my reason for hating it (that nothing is actually being interrupted) is just as legitimate as the one that you claim, if not more so.
  - jerrycurley, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3It isn't breaking anyway. By the time he SUBMOITTED it, it was not breaking. The story had already broke. No more new information will come out about this story. Hence, it is not breaking.
    
    You use BREAKING when there are going to be follow up stories for the next few hours or days, etc. Like "BREAKING: 6 people shot in a Texas mall. Shooter barricades himself in the Orange Julius."
  - beesaretasty, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Broken
- jerrycurley, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3matt...the real question is..why the ***** do you consider Digg to be ABOVE main stream news? Are you seriously under the impression that Digg is some higher form of news media?
  - matt510, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Digg above MSM? No, not so much. All I said was don't be like the MSM.
  - jerrycurley, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Well, where have you been for the last 2 years? Since it expanded and became a political site, and people realized how easy it is to game the algorithm and that KEvin and Co. don't care if they do, Digg has been FAR more senstationalist than even the National Enquirer.
- compu73rg33k, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Everyone should stop digging anything with "Breaking" in the headline. And in fact, start burying it as lame. The ball is in our court, guys.
Trav3133, on 07/01/2008, -16/+7screw environmentalists.
- roadtripguy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I bet you have money and nice things and don't really have to think much.
LightSpeed4, on 07/01/2008, -1/+28how is that "breaking"
- matt510, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2Breaking: I already made that comment. ;)
- D4CH, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2BREAKING: Written questions normally ends with a questionmark, scientists explain!
Duskraven, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10Can we please stop putting breaking into the title of an article, half of them don't need it, and the other half are a day old by the time they get to the front page.
jerrycurley, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15OK...One more time...BREAKING refers to storeis that are going to continue to unfoled over hte next several hours, days, or even weeks. A story that has already happened is not breaking.
kolinkoolface2, on 07/01/2008, -5/+3this is good, i like this. ANWR refuge that doesn't allow us to drill on roughly 20 acres out of over 19 million, not good, i don't like that.
GidsR, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Good to hear some good conservation news coming from the US.
benguild, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4This really makes me happy (and I'm not HUGE on saving the environment and all that jazz). It's unbelievable people want to cut forests like this down. They have stood there far longer than us. I die a little inside everytime I hear about big business ***** ***** up for everyone else. So many things I have yet to see...Guess I better get moving and seeing the world while I still can, before some pieces of ***** cut and burn everything down...
tchynerd, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Having visted Western Montana many times (most of my family lives in the Whitefish area) I am glad to see some work being done to protect these lands. I have been to a couple of the specific areas being protect and am more than over joyed to see that they are being protected! Yay Montana!
rheaume, on 07/01/2008, -7/+5Drill everywhere, cut down all the trees, god is gonna hit reload anyways
mayavada, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7Don't assume that the name "Nature Conservancy" means exactly that:
http://www.nature.org/pressroom/links/art10294.htm ...
it's from the Nature Conservancy's own Web site... justifying drilling for oil/gas on their land.

There's a reason that huge oil companies are among their biggest donors. They're essentially creating a private system of national parks/forests, without any of the pesky oversight that comes with public land.

Bury this if you want. It's a little bizarre to bury legitimate criticism.
- toecutter169, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Nice find, but the article you're linking to is actually a rebuttal to the whole drilling for oil thing. The land was used for drilling long before the Nature Conservancy owned it: 'It should be recognized that oil and gas extraction have been going on at this site for at least 50 years, with far fewer restrictions in place than the Conservancy’s drilling operation.'
  
  The justification for drilling for oil/gas on their own land is because the funds raised go towards saving an endangered species (okay, it's a prairie chicken!) and 'The funds raised by natural gas recovery at the preserve represent the only significant private funds supporting Attwater’s prairie chicken recovery efforts.'
  
  Also, 'production of natural gas on the preserve began only after a review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that included their recommendations on preventing adverse impacts to the Attwater's prairie chicken', so the animals aren't adversely affected and it's the only way to raise serious cash to protect them.
  
  You're trying to say the Nature Conservancy isn't so black-and-white and good-vs-evil...very few issues are.
- jdbeast00, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Conservation != Preservation. While this land deal is probably better than it was before, its a far cry from declaring the land a state park.
- Greenpointer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1You're right in looking deeper into this transaction. Plum Creek Timber has centuries of corruption behind it. Typically, big conservation non-profits have logging companies on their board of trustees. Here's an interesting link to some of Plum Creek's sordid history:
  
  http://www.endgame.org/plum-facts.html
ginogrz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3This makes me feel good.
numlocks, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7It so sad to see that this forest cannot be managed and harvested. Hippies keep on wiping the loggers jobs away in the lumber sector.

its too sad
- majortom1981, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I hope your being sarcastic. We can get wood in better ways. You know how much reusable wood gets thrown into the dump each year?
arcticblue, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10Q: How did this get to the front page?
A: "sent a shout to 94 recipients."

Is it the quality of the content that gets it to the front page or the number of "friends" you can shout at once? Hmm...

Anyway, this is good news, but I'm not digging this because of the "Breaking" in the title. This is not breaking news, and even if it was, by the time it got to the front page, it would no longer be "breaking."
- Greenpointer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Um... welcome to the reality of Digg, the user created system that's easily gamed (?)
CoMpUtErITGuY, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1Breaking and nature.org don't go together.
amightywind, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Is that the same Nature Conservancy that allows millionaire donors to build monster ranchettes adjacent to their properties? What a scam.
JangoFett, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2In other news, the price of toilet paper has shot up to $65 a roll due to paper speculators.
wizbor, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=47.047669,-108. ...

Looks like Montana already preserved, 'cept for maybe the dental floss tycoon.
rodeosmurf, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3This is good news, but it's not getting to the real heart of the deforestation problem. Most of the real deforestation in the world is happening in third world countries in places like South America.

Environmentalists like to act like white male christian republicans are destroying our planet's trees, but really it's people who are so poor that they'll cut down a few acres of forest to make a banana plantation so they can get enough money to feed themselves. Not such an easy problem to fix.
Subliminational, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1At first I read '320,000 acres of frost...'
Profiler38, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Breaking??? Are we really sitting on the edge of our seats for this one?
gavin422, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I'm actually pretty surprised that the "WTF Environmentalism is a scam!!" crowd hasn't hit this article yet.
- srodolff, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1It's the WWF and the wrestling is still fake...........
- randumbusername, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1huh?
  - gavin422, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1If you've ever read the comments in an article that so much as mentions global warming, solar or wind energy, carbon emissions, the "green" economy, Al Gore, or the Kyoto Protocol, you'll find scores of diggers proclaiming that it's all ***** and that it's harming capitalism.
normalkid0615, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Someone in your party was eaten by a bear.

Oregan Trail
zmigliozzi, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2What wait? "In one of the most significant conservation sales in U.S. history" I blame Bush, he's getting green on us.
radiantstorm, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2This is just part of the "re-wilding" of North America.
moonasha, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2What exactly is this breaking?
DerangedPenguin, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4And robbed homesteaders of their homes. Further barred Native American Indians from their ancestral home lands. So a few Liberal-Fascist in Washington D.C. and major urban cities can feel good about "doing" something for the environment.
Bilabrin, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Protected for now. It's like the constitution, it'll grant protection until some corrupt politician and a few cronies decide it's inconvenient.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Agreed.
  
  This is how it should be done, though. Environmentalists take note: When you buy land, it's yours and you should be able to do with it what you want, including NOT DEVELOPING ON IT (so long as you're not harming other people). I only hope that the government does not encroach on the land.
  - kemp34, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Exactly. Rather than using force of government, environmentalists should pool free people's resources in order to buy and conserve the land they want to save. Easy, free individual, anti-tyranny methods are out there.
corbettkroehler, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Yet another reason why I proudly donate to the Nature Conservancy every month!

Check out

http://www.keyboard-culture-global-warming.com/200 ...

for a review of their best program!
MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4More Federal Land Grabbing - Yeah!

I say this is *****. The Feds have no right to take land away from the State.
mrhaines, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1The British Columbia government in Canada just added 990,000 hectares to the park and protected areas system.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009 ...

Thats 3 times the size of this "most significant conservation sale in U.S. history"
specialbuddy1, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Mrhaines, The US also has has about 10 times more people then Canada so they should be adding 10 times the size of our "most significant conservation sale in U.S. history". Canada is the 4th largest country in the world and has 9.1 people per square mile. They don't have to protect their land because a great portion of it can't even be reached so who ***** cares about how much isolated land Canada can protect.
apache119, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I wonder how much oil were missing out on with this deal.
CreateSomeNoise, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Babies
silent7seven, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1BREAKING: US Lands Man On Moon
GoldenPearl, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0It is easy to protect land in B.C. that nobody wants in the first place
cognizance8, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Is Montana the new California? I mean, haven't we learned anything?

Conservation is great and everything, but when you protect it and keep it from being used the trees grow older, produce less oxygen, and become more prone to forest fires which then puts more carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide back into the atmosphere.

Use the trees and re-plant, that is the only real answer as trees are one of the few renewable resources we have. Turn it into lumber, turn it into furniture, trap the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and keep it from returning to the environment and do planned logging so that it is not such and ugly impact on the environment. Otherwise, the trees will either burn or will rot and release the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide it has chemically fixed in its metabolism.
- cognizance8, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1"and" should be "an"
- burkinaboy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1...and "keep it from being used" should be, "Maintaining the forests in sustainable timber management — keeping jobs in Montana and maintaining local businesses." from the article. :)
zippe, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2hurray!
Tuft, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2320 000 acres = 500 square miles
eltrev, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1I donated 100k, and now I have 12 acres adjacent to prime Tahoe country.

no. not really, but you really are a ***** retard.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Breaking: 320,000 Acres of Forest Protected in Landmark Deal

Login or register to add a comment