Save the Redwoods League, an environmental protection group from the Bay Area, just bought land for $24.7 million in Anderson Valley from the Mailliard family, who has privately owned the forest for 90 years. The deal doubled the amount of land that Save the Redwoods is protecting in Mendocino County. The land that the group bought will permanently protect 1,000 acres of forest, including 28 miles of streams, from being cut down and turned into properties such as vineyards or small ranches. This land is also part of the ancestral lands of some of the Central Pomo tribes and protecting it is a priority for Sam Hodder, Save the Redwoods' president. The forest is home to animal species such as black-tailed deer, Coho salmon, golden eagles, northern spotted owls, and steelhead trout. It also has almost 160 native species of plan in its diverse ecosystem.
I believe that this new deal is a great thing as it not only protects nature, but also history. I wish that there were more groups like Save the Redwoods that seem to be doing their best to help preserve our environment. Hopefully, the group Save the Redwoods will be able to keep this forest thriving and make sure that it will be a safe home for many plants and animals in the future.
Discussion questions:
1. What do you think about this new deal?
2. How do you think preserving forests will affect the future?
3. Do you believe that forests should be able to be privately owned?
I also agree that this new deal is really great because it preserves both nature and history; I think that protecting these forests will help the animals and ecosystems living there stay strong for many more years to come, which we’ll definitely need as climate change takes more and more effect. I thought it was very interesting that the land was bought from a family - but just like any other piece of land, I think that as long as a family or private group buys it fairly, then I think they have a right to that land. Although I do think there are probably environmental questions about that and how they treat the land (especially if there are redwoods or other endangered species on the land), as well as questions on if one could truly fairly buy land if it is ancestral land, like this is for the Central Pomo tribes. But I think that in this case, it sounds like the Save the Redwoods League has good intentions with their purchase, so I’m excited about that.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that the intentions of the Save the Redwoods League seem good. I really liked how you brought up the point about there being more moral questions about buying ancestral land. It's definitely something that doesn't seem talked about very often but it seems important just so we can be as respectful as possible. Hopefully, like you mentioned, this deal will help endangered plants and animals and the forests will continue to thrive. I also really liked the point that you brought up about how preserving nature will help with climate change. I completely agree and I think that helping preserve ecosystems and preventing deforestation should help the climate change crisis that we have right now. The more that we do now to help our planet now, the better our future should hopefully be and it seems as though the Save the Redwoods League has that in mind.
DeleteLike you and Lauren, I think this new deal is awesome for preserving both nature and history. Preserving forests helps to preserve both plant and animal species so that, hopefully, future generations can see and experience those things.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of a privately own forest is a little weird (I don't know why), but I guess it's like owning any other piece of land. And, if private ownership of forests can protect and preserve the ecosystems within them, then I think it's definitely a good thing. In this case it seems like Save the Redwoods has good intentions so I'm glad that they were/are able to protect it.
I found your point about thinking about future generations and what they will experience really important. That was a really great insight and I think we definitely have to think about the future and how to best protect it. The more nature we can protect, the more plants and animals will live so that future generations won't just read about them in textbooks, but actually see them in real life. This deal seems to not only preserve history but protect the future. I also agree with you that private ownership of forests can be really good if they're beneficial to the land and don't damage it. As long as the intentions are right and the land is protected for both its history and nature, deals like this one seem really great. Forests also seem especially important to protect because of the diversity in their ecosystems.
DeleteI think that Save the Redwoods’ action to protect the land in Mendocino County sounds great. I agree with Colin that the idea of a privately owned forest seems kind of strange, especially that much land, but I’m happy that this organization will do their best to preserve the forest. Since this sounds like it is not going to be open for public visits, the animals and plants will be free from human interaction, which can definitely affect their behavior and habitats. I feel like there is a lot of gray area with privately owned forests, because on the one hand, some groups' intentions are good, while others are solely focused on taking whatever they can gain from the environment. I heard a little while ago that Ikea bought thousands of acres of forest to protect the land, so while it is strange at first to hear of beautiful forests being privately owned, I think it’s really great that these groups or companies have decided to step up and protect our Earth.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that forests should be privately owned, I believe that they should be protected by the government however, obviously in some cases it is necessary. If the intent is to protect the forest and preserve the nature and history of the trees then this is absolutely the right decision. If the government does not step up to protect our forests and the environment it is up to the people to do something so I think this is a great deal. In the future if more forests are not preserved like this or in other ways, we could see a lot of forests being cut down which will have a massive effect on the environment.
ReplyDeleteI also definitely think that a deal like this with the purpose of maintaining and protecting forest land is very impactful/beneficial. I didn't realize before that there was privatization of such a large amount of forest land, and agree that private ownership seems strange - placing land under federal protection could be a much better and safer option. Regardless, I think that preserving forests has major importance for maintaining the habitats of animals, and also in the overall protection of the environment.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great deal because it will protect and preserve redwood tree forests which is not only good for the envrionment but it preserves history. Redwood trees are such a critical part of the Peninsula Bay Area, as many people outside or within the state of CA come to hike and learn about Redwood Trees. They are certainly an attraction for many tourists, which is why protecting RedWood Trees is extremely important. Redwood trees also take a long time to grow, well over 100 years, and they have now become a piece of CA history. Cutting them down is essentially getting rid of a part of history in a way.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great deal because preserving history shouldn't be postponed for any reason. While we may be in tough times, we still need to remember the ideals that we stuck to such as protecting valuable parts of our state. Preserving forests will allow for a better environment in our future especially with the amount of fires there have been in the past few years. They are also a great help to the nature and tourism of California, something that should be preserved for our great state. Privatizing forestry, while it may seem negative for the purpose at first, could help preserve them. Environmentalists that can spend that money could definitely help with the preservation of forests when non-profits or organizations from the government may not be able to.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this new deal is very exciting because it will protect the redwoods and their forest. I feel that with that forest having so much history the government should step in, yet they don't seem to. Having to have private company step in to do so seems to be such a great length for them that the government should do anyways. However, I am glad that this organization is able to protect so much history and beauty.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the others, I think that this new deal is great because it will help protect redwood trees for historical reasons, protecting the organisms that live there, and climate-based reasons. With the rise of population and the push towards developing more areas to support families, an active push back is needed against those to make sure we continue to protect nature. While we could argue that simply preserving this one forest is not enough to make a difference against climate change, I’m sure that this organization’s actions will inspire others to also take action to protect their local forests, whether it be for the long term benefit or for the sake of preserving historic meaning. I support their actions, but I am a bit concerned about it being privately owned. There’s a lack of clarity behind what exactly privately owned land means - will people still be able to visit these forests? Will scientists be able to examine these organisms for scientific purposes? Does this mean that the land will not be sold again? If so, buying the land is only a temporary solution.
ReplyDeleteLike others have said, I think this new deal is great because it protects trees, habitats, ecosystems and more. As for the question about ownership, I think it really depends. Privately owning forests, while seeming strange, is also fair and legal if they purchase it fairly. However, it is a little weird. but honestly as long as the person, organization, or government has good intentions (like to protect and preserve) then I support that. I agree with what you said about how there should be more organizations like this one to protect more forests and ecosystems. Of course, the fact that this land (and arguably all the land) is land that once belonged to different (ancestral) tribes, it raises the question of who should be allowed to own it, and who it really. belongs too. -Rowan CC
ReplyDeleteLike others, I agree that the new deal is great for the environment as well as protecting history. Preserving forests will have a great impact on the environment in the future, especially as the forest acts as a host to 160 native species. By protecting the forest, the Redwoods League saves not only the individual species of the forest but also the overall diversity of nature. In addition, the trees of the forest provide numerous benefits such as reducing the effect of global warming in the atmosphere, providing shelter to the numerous species, preventing soil erosion, and maintaining the ecological balance of the forest. I also believe that the forests should not be privately owned unless the owners have good intentions in preserving the forest and the life that it contains.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to preserve the environment for the future. Biodiversity is unquestionably important, and given the problems of deforestation, purchasing forest land to prevent habitat loss is clearly a net positive.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether or not private ownership is good, it is a reality of the current situation, and I don't see it changing in the near future. Given the conditions, it is important, as the Nature Conservancy has been doing through it's working woodlands program (https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/working-woodlands/), to educate the owners about managing "their forests sustainably" and helping them do so.
I think it's great that the environment will be preserved as it protects the environment and the history behind it. Especially with global warming, I'm hoping that this will be able to protect the species native to that area will allow future generations to see it as well. The idea of privately owned forests are a little weird, similar to what Colin said. Maybe it's just that I don't own a forest but I don't really see what the point of privately owning a forest is (maybe to brag at parties and say "do you have your own private forest?"). I guess it really depends on the intention of owning the forest; if someone wants to protect the forest and that's the only way, I'd support it. However, to privately own a forest only to cut it down and build something else there seems wrong.
ReplyDelete