Wow, 3 against 1, Skinner!-Of course, that’s how collectivists/enviro-nutjobs work.

Let’s see now. Mr. Siderious’s family has been in the Flathead Valley for 100 years. Mr. Marx was a trusted adviser for Gov. Marc Racicot. Ms. Wood is a biologist with decades of local experience. And Roark dismisses them as “nutjobs.” I think that tells us more about Mr. Roark than it does about the authors of this thoughtful piece. I think Mr. Roark owes this trio an apology.

I can appreciate one who wants to set aside land for its beauty and enjoyment, however conservations easements are a slippery slope to the de facto negation of private property rights, of course always in the name of the environment.

Whatchu got on that Skinner?

“The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. “

those that are so paronoid of the apparent smoke and mirrors associated with a perceived loss of property rights are just as nutty as the environmentalists they condemn.  what a bunch of hot air.  i am so tired of the extreme points of view on both sides of this issue.  it will always be hard to find the middle ground so long as all the hot air continues to blow out of the mouths of the few but very vocal malcontents that like to stir the pot and fan the hot air onto their own short-sighted self-serving opinions.  there are few examples that i know of out there of folks suffering as a result of entiring into purely voluntary agreements.  that’s right these are voluntary agreements.  usually the current landowner has much to do with the architecture of the agreement and has a strong desire to see current land uses and undeveloped nature of their current property continue in perpetuity.  if you know of specific examples where conservation easements ended up hurting landowners - why don’t you provide some examples?  why can’t you look at it as a different kind of development.  one that does not involve suburbs, shopping malls, or mcmansions; but rather one that ensures the development of clean air, clean water, more trees or maybe more cows?  what really cracks me up are all the folks that are out there harping about their private property rights - how many are actually land owners that are going to benefirt from millions of dollars of development on their property?  i would guess very few of the voacl propnents of private property rights are actually in a position to strike it rich, rather they are just the mouthy malcontents stirring pot.  wake up and smell the money - or ths cows.  conservation easements are a private property right, they exemplify land owners doing just wjhat they want to do with their property - which in this case just happen to be to make a choice to say i choose the open land over the buckets full of money.  why condemn their choice?  cuz its not the capitalist way?