North Bay land deal to connect 22K acres of forest, wildlife habitat
The Monte Rio Redwood Expansion 'faces a significant threat of residential development,' Save the Redwoods League said in the announcement. The San Francisco-based nonprofit organization negotiated an agreement to purchase the property for $24 million from Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC).
The League will convey the property to Sonoma County Regional Parks for long-term stewardship, according to the organization.
The property features 3.7 miles of streams, including spawning waters for coho salmon and steelhead trout. Its vast and varying wildlife habitats and corridors are home to mountain lions, northern spotted owls, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats and California red-legged frogs.
'Mountain lions, bobcats, California quail, and American badgers are among the fascinating animals that move through this landscape,' Save the Redwoods League said. 'Connecting this property to other conserved lands will secure and stabilize this potential breeding habitat, while also building wildfire and climate resilience for the benefit of wildlife populations and local communities alike.'
California monarch butterfly population plummets 96% in 2024 survey
The 1,287 acres of coast redwoods are mixed with Douglas-fir, tanoak, madrone, coast live oak, and California bay. One notable lightning-scarred, old-growth redwood measures 14 feet across with a natural tunnel running through its base, according to the nonprofit.
'The opportunity to secure Monte Rio Redwoods Expansion property creates a landscape of contiguous, conserved forest and creek habitat from the coast to the Bohemian Highway,' said Sam Hodder, president and CEO of Save the Redwoods League. 'Expanding public open space in this extraordinary scenic corridor will benefit residents and visitors with new recreational trails through redwood forests and across open meadows with stunning views of the Russian River Valley.'
The nonprofit is seeking $20 million in public and private funding for the purchase, with the remaining $4 million to come from Save the Redwoods League and partner organization Sonoma Land Trust.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
National Park Peak Set to Be Renamed
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Teton County Board of County Commissioners is proposing to change the name of Mount Woodring in Wyoming's Grand Teton National Park to Raven Peak, due to concerns about the mountain's namesake being charged with sexual assault in the 1930s. Newsweek reached out to the press office of the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey via email for comment. Why It Matters Mount Woodring was named after the park's first superintendent, Samuel T. Woodring. Woodring was charged with assaulting and attempting to commit rape against an 11-year-old girl in 1934, according to court documents. The charges were dismissed a year later because the parents of the girl did not want to put their daughter through the trauma of testifying, the name change proposal form states. The name change was proposed by the Teton County Board of County Commissioners, which said that "the name Mount Woodring is offensive." The board said that there was a "need to adopt a new name at the earliest possible opportunity." Mount Woodring was included in the U.S. Geological Survey's list of "upcoming proposals of interest" last year. Mount Woodring of the Grand Tetons Peaks in Grand Tetons National Park. Mount Woodring of the Grand Tetons Peaks in Grand Tetons National Park. htrnr/Getty Images What To Know The Teton County Board of County Commissioners has suggested the name Raven Peak, as "ravens are commonly found in the Tetons, they are considered intelligent birds, and the raven is considered significant in most Native American cultures." The board said it felt that it was important to name the peak after an animal and not a person, because "the reputation of a person can change with the passage of time, whereas the status of a raven is not likely to change as years pass." "The hope is that Raven Peak will have staying power that helps to make it a fitting name," the proposal said. In its original letter to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, there was also another possible name mentioned: Equality Peak. However, after listening to public feedback, the board found that there was "overwhelming support for the name Raven Peak," while the name Equality Peak was deemed "controversial" and met with "considerable opposition" by some members of the public. President Donald Trump has been an active proponent of historical monuments and military bases keeping their original names, signing an executive order in March titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History." The administration wrote in the order: "Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth." It added: "This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light." Earlier this year, he signed an executive order changing the name of Alaska's highest peak, Denali, back to its original name, Mount McKinley and renamed the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America." What People Are Saying The Teton County Board of County Commissioners, in its letter: "Ravens live in our community and in Grand Teton National Park year-round and exhibit incredible intelligence, play an important role in our ecosystem, are adaptable – thriving at high and low elevations, often performing impressive acrobatic maneuvers – and are known to be highly social and playful. It is our community's sentiment that Raven Peak is an appropriate name for the mountain where these remarkable birds live and play." What Happens Next The final decision for the name change lies with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, although Trump is able to override the board's authority should he decide to.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Is it ‘rude' to box up leftovers when someone else pays? Father-son argument over to-go food sparks debate
A 28-year-old man got into a dispute with his father after asking for a to-go box at a restaurant — dividing diners on Reddit and prompting a larger discussion about etiquette. In a post, the man wrote that the dispute began after his family went out to eat at a diner, on his father's dime. 'I ordered a main course but also felt like I was in the mood for a side dish, so I ordered it as well,' the Reddit user wrote. 'My eyes were bigger than my stomach, because I was unable to finish my food. I asked for a to-go box.' But his dad was peeved by the move, the Redditor said. Soon thereafter, his father told him what he had done was 'rude' and 'that when someone else is paying for your meal, you shouldn't order extra stuff if you won't be able to finish,' the man wrote. The man added that his father 'meant well' and was trying to teach him a lesson — but he did not take the advice well. They 'got into an argument and I offered to pay him back if it bothered him so much, and he said I was missing the point,' the man recalled. 'I didn't think it was that absurd to get a to-go box. Was I an a–hole?' 4 A 28-year-old man got into a dispute with his father after asking for a to-go box at a restaurant — dividing diners on Reddit and prompting a larger discussion about etiquette. Suzi Media – Many agreed with the father. 'If someone else is paying, you don't order up big, that's just rude,' one of the commenters said. 'I wouldn't be happy either. Be a little more respectful next time.' '[My] nephew used to do this all the time until I put a stop to it,' another said. 'Not appropriate when someone else is paying.' A third person wrote, 'I have a grandson who does this. He orders a huge amount of food, takes a few bites and leaves the rest… It's rude and wasteful.' 4 'I ordered a main course but also felt like I was in the mood for a side dish, so I ordered it as well,' the Reddit user wrote. 'My eyes were bigger than my stomach, because I was unable to finish my food. I asked for a to-go box.' cherryandbees – Others sided with the original Reddit poster, arguing the father was unnecessarily harsh. 'What sort of dad doesn't want to feed his kid?' one person wrote. 'He sounds awful, and I wouldn't go with him again.' 'It is very easy to over-order if you are hungry or if you don't know the portions this place serves,' another said. 'You apologized and offered to pay. That should be the end of it.' 4 His father told him what he had done was 'rude' and 'that when someone else is paying for your meal, you shouldn't order extra stuff if you won't be able to finish,' the man wrote. ruslanshug – Texas-based etiquette expert Pat Durham told Fox News Digital that both parties handled the situation imperfectly. 'When we are a guest and someone else is paying for our food, we should be considerate of our host and his or her pocketbook,' Durham said. 'In this instance, ordering an additional side was inappropriate.' 4 The Reddit story sparked a divided response, with some comments agreeing with the father, while others took the son's side in the disagreement. Viacheslav Yakobchuk – However, the dad 'didn't handle the situation well, either,' the decorum pro said. 'The offending party missed the whole point,' she added. 'But, children can only know what they learn from their parents and others in positions of teaching and mentoring.'
New York Times
4 hours ago
- New York Times
My Partner and I Aren't Excited to Move In Together. Is That Bad?
My partner and I have been seeing each other for two and a half years. We're planning to move in together next year, and if all goes well, to get married the year after that. The problem: Neither of us is super excited about moving in together. I like living alone, and I'm concerned about losing my independence. My girlfriend is concerned about having to deal with my small quirks. We've even discussed looking for a two-bedroom apartment, so we can have defined spaces to be alone. Make no mistake, we love each other deeply. And we recognize that there are many benefits to moving in together, such as advancing our relationship. Do we have a problem? BOYFRIEND I think you have the opposite of a problem: Through good communication, you and your girlfriend have identified an issue that was probably awkward to raise and to discuss. But you did it. Well done! To me, this bodes well for your relationship. And since there is no single answer here, let's consider a few options. Regardless of which apartment you plan to live in — hers, yours or one you haven't found yet — you can experiment now, in your current spaces, by designating zones and blocks of time in which you can be alone. Healthy couples are rarely together 24/7, and scheduling time and space for independence can be an important part of caring for yourself and your relationship. Now, this may be easier to pull off in a larger apartment, as you suggest, but you can still try it now. Let me add that there is no one way to advance your relationship, as you put it — and it certainly doesn't require shared real estate. I know a happily married couple who have lived in separate apartments in the same building for 30 years! This may not be your aim, but keep talking about what's working and what isn't. That's the important thing. It seems to me that you and your girlfriend are off to a healthy start. A Guest With Pre-Wedding Jitters Our adult son's girlfriend is transgender. This is not an issue for us. But we are all invited to our nephew's wedding, and his branch of the family is socially conservative. I have heard passing remarks from them over the years that indicate potential transphobia. The bridegroom's family has never met our son's girlfriend, nor do they know she is trans, but everyone has deep affection for our son. Do we owe the bridegroom or his parents any warning? Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
