MENDOCINO CO., CA., 5/18/26 — Montgomery Woods is expanding with a gift of property owned by a conservation nonprofit.
The nonprofit Save the Redwoods League announced that it has completed the transfer of its 453-acre Atkins Place property to California State Parks as a new addition to Montgomery Woods State Natural Reserve.
The nonprofit acquired Atkins Place in 2022 for $1.8 million through its Montgomery Woods initiative with funds secured through a combination of state grants, donor philanthropy and fundraising event proceeds, the league said.
Save the Redwoods League said Atkins Place features a healthy second-growth forest with coast redwood and oak woodlands, as well as 1.25 miles of streams suitable for salmon.
The addition of Atkins Place expands Montgomery Woods by 16%, the league said. The nonprofit also noted they have protected 42,000 acres of land in Mendocino County to date.
According to the California State Parks Foundation and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, the process of adding land to state parks, including the Montgomery Woods expansion, has been accelerated with the signing of Senate Bill 630 into law in October. Now, it takes fewer layers of approval for California State Parks to acquire adjacent land to expand state parks.
worth noting
that there will be no public access for general public
at this property
and there are multiple signs already posted warning people not to trespass
like so many of these land deals
a private party gets taxpayer dollars to “preserve “ property
and the public has no access or ability to utilize the state owned or sponsored property
id invite anyone to go try and access this new “addition” to the park and report back
Not quite.
Trails have to be established before opening it to the public.
It’s a State Natural Reserve.
State Natural Reserves are similar to state parks in that they protect natural landscapes, but the emphasis is more on plants and animals, or specific geological features. They generally have fewer facilities and less development than state parks.
It’s not just a free for all vibe. That’s what the City/County Parks and non-designated State & USFS Forests and BLM lands are for.
They want us to stay on the established trails because preservation is more important than us having access to everything there.
For the “general” public this is also a real safety issue. Thus, liability is a major factor in all decisions about public access.
Takes time to figure out where to cut a trail that will last and preserve the features it cuts through, like not silting up the creek.
There might be another mile or so of trail added.
There are already ongoing trail projects.
Dog are NOT allowed in Montgomery Woods.
If you stop and take a look down literally any hillside pullout in our county you will see loads of trash have been dumped… Fish Rock, Hwy 20, Old River Road, Sherwood, on and on and on… Sometimes we need to prevent people from access because the worst among us will destroy whatever they can…Not everything exists for our pleasure.
can I bring my dog?
nope
and not on blm land adjacent or any “public “ land connected to mw
dear non fiction
your comments are fiction
so a new user name may be in order
not quite
there is no public parking for the “addition”
there is no room formparking there and its about a mile from the mw parking lot
also the blm land is across the street and off limits as well
there will be no new trails in addition amd the public is not welcome there
go read the signs at the gate
ive lived nearby for 50 years, my entire life
keep drinking the fiction cool aid
and go try amd use the new park
its a park
not a wilderness area
just throw the money out of the car window instead of giving it to private organizations
youre more likely to get a benefit from the govt money give away
What does the word “Reserve” mean to you? When I reserve a table at a restaurant, does that mean everyone is able to access it whenever they want?
How basic do we need to make our language for you to understand these very simple concepts?
It’s NOT a CA State Park nor a CA State Forest.
It’s Montgomery Woods State NATURAL RESERVE.
It may be a part of and managed by CA State Parks but it is specifically NOT designated as a Park.
It’s NOT meant for you and everyone else to be able to go tromping through the whole thing.
Don’t make it personal or we can start delving into your anger issues and lack of reading comprehension skills.
So sorry you’re so confused. Sounds like a personal problem and may be the actual reason why you’re angry.
The Grant $ given by the State has now been returned to the State in the form of a REAL ASSET.
Of the ~$1.8M spent on the Atkins tract a lot less than $43K came from grants.
See Page 2, Line 4a of Save the Redwoods League’s IRS Tax filing from 2022 (when they purchased the Atkins tract).
https://www.savetheredwoods.org/wp-content/uploads/tax-returns/FY-2022-23_Form-990.pdf
Conserving land with high ecological value is a MUCH better value and use of $ than throwing it out the window.
And the people doing it are certainly much more effective at conserving Redwood Forests than all your bitching, whining, & complaining will “accomplish” in another 50years.
Do you do anything besides “try” to cut people down for accomplishing things you just don’t (or can’t) understand?
There are MANY more land designations, each with it own specific legislated purpose and use characteristics, than “Park” or “Wilderness”.
CA State Parks does not have a Wilderness designation.
Example:
You can hunt and gather in BLM & USFS Wilderness Areas.
Hunting & Gathering is prohibited in all CA State “Park” land designations.
Jackson State Forest, whole different designation & category of use under CALFIRE management.
apparently you’re confused on the difference between a private business predicated on a business transaction and taxpayer money used to give to rich individuals to buy land that you dont get to use
seems pretty simple
good luck out there
Dear Guest:
It’s actually not that simple. One of the purposes for creating a land preserve is to set land aside from private ownership for the good of the general public, but it is also for many other, larger reasons, such as, in this case, protecting its watersheds and diverse wildlife, and preserving the long-term benefits that a mature, seral forest provides, like natural water retention and temperature moderation, which do benefit us humans in the long run. I assume you have walked in Montgomery Woods so you know what I’m talking about. It will also help shelter the Montgomery Woods themselves by providing more of a buffer from human activity and development. As the comment above says, “Not everything exists for our pleasure.”
It takes a lot of time and negotiations with the private owners of the land to acquire it, and a lot more time and resources to protect it from future negative impacts once the public gets access. It actually is a business transaction that has to involve many different parties, both public and private, and takes a lot of finesse and expertise.
The infrastructure you say doesn’t exist is planned, but it won’t happen overnight. The signs at the gate will be easy to change when the time is right. Here is an excerpt from a previous MV article about this purchase: “The league reports that it purchased Atkins Place in August of 2022 . . . which it described as “a landscape-scale vision to expand protection around Montgomery Woods and improve visitor experiences at the reserve.” People may have to hike in to the site, which might actually screen out a lot of the litterers. I personally am very happy to see this purchase and can’t wait to be able to hike there. But if it does turn out that I can’t, so be it. It’s worth preserving anyway.
you obviously don’t understand what im saying
the private property was purchased at 4x value and the sellers got tax breaks etc at public expense and the taxpayers dont get to access the property, the press releases and inferences are that this is an addition to a state reserve which is accessible to the public
not this addition even thit has county road frontage and developed roads as the property was extensively logged last in the 90s and early 00s
corporate welfare is cool with you apparently
totally legal
totally cool
Mr. Guest. where do you get your information? How do you know the original value of the land before the League purchased it? Were you planning to buy it yourself? How do you know the sellers got a tax break?
Not that it matters. This is a very valuable transfer to the people of California and beyond (not just the rich) of a uniquely healthy, second-growth coast redwood and mixed forest with also unusually high-quality streams where coho salmon and other endangered species have a better chance at survival than in other State parks.
Conservation and ecological preservation are good enough causes to set aside such a unique place. For apparently most California tax payers, and for many reasons, it is well worth the money, even without the expansion of trails and recreational facilities that the League has, actually, already planned.
Here’s some additional information from the League’s own website to qualm your fears that you won’t get personal access: “With Atkins Place now formally part of Montgomery Woods State Natural Reserve, State Parks can explore expanded public access and visitor experiences . . . THE ADDITION OF ATKINS PLACE IS EXPECTED TO SUPPORT FUTURE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT.”
“. . . An established trail along a ridgeline . . . can provide a new public access point to the northern part of the reserve. Conservation of this property creates opportunities for a future EXPANDED TRAIL NETWORK, CAMPING, AND ADDITIONAL PARKING FACILITIES that could enable more visitors to experience the beauty and tranquility of Montgomery Woods.”
So what more proof do you need? Are you going to insist that the current No Trespassing signs on the gate are more trustworthy than the public website of the nonprofit organization that paid for the land? You will get your access, and more importantly, there is hope for some genuine, coastal redwood forest and watershed restoration. As a tax-payer, I say this is a perfect use of my hard-earned money, one that I can appreciate and observe just a few miles away from my home.
So again: Where do you get your information?
Another Reserve. Purchased with “The People’s Money” yet lock out the “People.”
Grant money, our tax dollars purchasing land and locking it up!
The original intent sounds good. But look at where this is going. Thousands of acres purchased without access. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority here in the South Bay are buying acres buy the thousands with our tax dollars with no access regulations. These militant green groups answer to nobody. There needs to regulations on management if using tax dollars to purchase. The people should have access if purchased with “People’s Money!”
Mike, please read the comments above yours. There will be access, it’s in the plan. This isn’t Santa Clara, and the new owner of the land is California State Parks, not a private corporation or joint powers authority.
I’m sorry for you people in the South Bay if what you say is true and you have no access to the land you are talking about, unless it is a nature preserve to restore sensitive habitat or species like migratory birds, in which case it’s necessary to protect it from most human activity. In the case of the Montgomery Woods expansion, the purposes of the purchase are mentioned in pretty good detail in the previous comments and on the STRL’s own website. But in case you can’t find them, here are some important excerpts from the nonprofit’s website to rebut your accusations: “THE ADDITION OF ATKINS PLACE IS EXPECTED TO SUPPORT FUTURE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT.” “. . . An established trail along a ridgeline . . . can provide a new public access point to the northern part of the reserve. Conservation of this property creates opportunities for a future EXPANDED TRAIL NETWORK, CAMPING, AND ADDITIONAL PARKING FACILITIES that could enable more visitors to experience the beauty and tranquility of Montgomery Woods.”
I don’t know if you have ever seen Montgomery Woods or what’s left of the surrounding redwood forests, but they are truly worth preserving, and worth the thousands of private donations and grant money that paid for it.
It’s unfortunate and disturbing that there are still people like you who consider people who are trying to save what’s left of our natural landscapes and wildlife, especially our indigenous forests, as “militant green groups.” Militant? I guess the pen truly is more powerful than the sword, thank God.