22 million BLM acres for development?

[Straight Arrow]

Take it outside boys!

 

[Irrelevant]

please tell me what your expectation is and what bright ideas you have on how to turn the energy industry monster (all of it) around?

My expectation is that a conservation non profit with a mission to "work on behalf and wild public lands" treats a solar development the same way it would treat Bishops plans to sell it off for housing. Either way those public lands are getting the shaft.

 

[brocksw]

My expectation is that a conservation non profit with a mission to "work on behalf and wild public lands" treats a solar development the same way it would treat Bishops plans to sell it off for housing. Either way those public lands are getting the shaft.

That’s a fair expectation. I just think it’s important to understand that doesn’t mean every single project can be stopped. There’s something like over 800 mines that operate on federal public lands across the country. BHA has only opposed a small fraction. Not only would it be insanely difficult to interject into every single proposed energy project, but it would be impossible to do from a volunteer or non-profit standpoint.

Throw on top of that fact that it is the BLM’s mandate, essentially required by law, to entertain and make accommodations for these energy projects.

I don’t think there’s anybody involved with BHA that given the opportunity wouldn’t waive a magic wand and make all development disappear off public lands to some degree. Buts that not the reality we live in, it’s not practical or feasible.

So again, where does that leave us? Participating in the process. Commenting on management plants, getting involved in legislation(like PLREDA), to work towards amenable paths forward. Picking battles, picking which hills we are willing to die on and where we can allocate volunteer time and energy.

There’s no shortage of issues, and a severe shortage of thoughtful and determined people willing to get involved and show up.

“The men who act without thinking, and the men who both think and act, are the ones who mould the world. The man who thinks and does not act never moulds the world. He may think that he does — but that, too, is only a thought, the thought of a deedless, actionless thinker.” –Jack London’s letter to Philo M. Buck, Jr., July 19, 1913

 

[Irrelevant]

That’s a fair expectation. I just think it’s important to understand that doesn’t mean every single project can be stopped. There’s something like over 800 mines that operate on federal public lands across the country. BHA has only opposed a small fraction. Not only would it be insanely difficult to interject into every single proposed energy project, but it would be impossible to do from a volunteer or non-profit standpoint.

Throw on top of that fact that it is the BLM’s mandate, essentially required by law, to entertain and make accommodations for these energy projects.

I don’t think there’s anybody involved with BHA that given the opportunity wouldn’t waive a magic wand and make all development disappear off public lands to some degree. Buts that not the reality we live in, it’s not practical or feasible.

So again, where does that leave us? Participating in the process. Commenting on management plants, getting involved in legislation(like PLREDA), to work towards amenable paths forward. Picking battles, picking which hills we are willing to die on and where we can allocate volunteer time and energy.

There’s no shortage of issues, and a severe shortage of thoughtful and determined people willing to get involved and show up.

“The men who act without thinking, and the men who both think and act, are the ones who mould the world. The man who thinks and does not act never moulds the world. He may think that he does — but that, too, is only a thought, the thought of a deedless, actionless thinker.” –Jack London’s letter to Philo M. Buck, Jr., July 19, 1913

I certainly don't disagree that there are more problems than resources. But I for one don't see a coal mine the same as a permanent solar facility, I think you could even question whether or not a permanent development is truly a multiple use or an exclusive use.

Was Chaffetz's proposal a hill to die on? It was almost 4x bigger but would have achieved the same outcome, private party permanent development of public lands. It sure felt like it at the time. This feels pretty similar to me.

 

[hossblur]

That’s a fair expectation. I just think it’s important to understand that doesn’t mean every single project can be stopped. There’s something like over 800 mines that operate on federal public lands across the country. BHA has only opposed a small fraction. Not only would it be insanely difficult to interject into every single proposed energy project, but it would be impossible to do from a volunteer or non-profit standpoint.

Throw on top of that fact that it is the BLM’s mandate, essentially required by law, to entertain and make accommodations for these energy projects.

I don’t think there’s anybody involved with BHA that given the opportunity wouldn’t waive a magic wand and make all development disappear off public lands to some degree. Buts that not the reality we live in, it’s not practical or feasible.

So again, where does that leave us? Participating in the process. Commenting on management plants, getting involved in legislation(like PLREDA), to work towards amenable paths forward. Picking battles, picking which hills we are willing to die on and where we can allocate volunteer time and energy.

There’s no shortage of issues, and a severe shortage of thoughtful and determined people willing to get involved and show up.

“The men who act without thinking, and the men who both think and act, are the ones who mould the world. The man who thinks and does not act never moulds the world. He may think that he does — but that, too, is only a thought, the thought of a deedless, actionless thinker.” –Jack London’s letter to Philo M. Buck, Jr., July 19, 1913

Roosevelt saved about 230 million acres. The folks using his name, are looking at development in 220 million.

Times have changed I guess, we have plenty more frontier land available down the road

 

[Ben Lamb]

Roosevelt saved about 230 million acres. The folks using his name, are looking at development in 220 million.

Nothing is these two sentences is true. Roosevelt put aside those acreages for managed timber production under a multiple use mandate as much as anything else. The current admin is not proposing development on 22 million acres.

Political speech is designed to obfuscate the issue and enflame passions. Not get to the bottom of an issue.

Here's another windmill to tilt at boys: https://wyofile.com/lawmakers-float...=email&utm_term=0_-5d7df96fde-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]

 

[brocksw]

I certainly don't disagree that there are more problems than resources. But I for one don't see a coal mine the same as a permanent solar facility, I think you could even question whether or not a permanent development is truly a multiple use or an exclusive use.

Was Chaffetz's proposal a hill to die on? It was almost 4x bigger but would have achieved the same outcome, private party permanent development of public lands. It sure felt like it at the time. This feels pretty similar to me.

Yeah, I would agree these are not always apples to apples comparisons in terms of impact. I would also agree a solar field is not multiple use, at least not where the solar field physically sits. But neither is an oil pad, or a mine, where they physically sit. But I don't think that defines the scope or scale that instructs the BLM on how to view these things through the lens of management at a landscape wide level.

BLM land is multiple use, a solar field is a part of that multiple use, just like the other industries. I bet you and I could walk into a BLM office and make good case for solar fields not being "multiple use" where they are constructed. But I bet the BLM would respond by stating that their mandate doesn't require land be simultaneously available to all multiple uses at all times. That as a hunter, you can go over there next door and hunt the BLM land over there. Hence their definition of being "multiple use".

I don't necessarily always like it either, but that's the game. I think industry impacts can have an outsized impact to their physical location, that doesn't always seem to get taken into account. But we can labor over semantics until the cows come home, it won't matter. The only way you're going to change any of this in a way that would be favorable to you, at least by your descriptions here on this topic, is an act from congress that would change the BLM's mandate and the framework they operate within. Outside of that, you have to participate. Participating in scoping processes, commenting on an EIS, participating in management plans and plan revisions (through comment periods and objection processes), supporting/opposing legislation, or litagation. That's it. Well, unless you want to go chain yourself to some heavy equipment.

 

[Irrelevant]

Nothing is these two sentences is true. Roosevelt put aside those acreages for managed timber production under a multiple use mandate as much as anything else. The current admin is not proposing development on 22 million acres.

Political speech is designed to obfuscate the issue and enflame passions. Not get to the bottom of an issue.

Here's another windmill to tilt at boys: https://wyofile.com/lawmakers-float-10m-stimulus-for-enhanced-oil-recovery-in-wyoming/?utm_source=WyoFile&utm_campaign=5d7df96fde-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_01_31_09_44&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5d7df96fde-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]

I think we all agree that some of the best hunting and habitat occurs in areas that were logged but is that true of solar farms too, or is that multiple use different?

I think the point some are making is that it simply doesn't pass the smell test.

There is zero difference from an access and habitat standpoint between

and this

And both are necessary.

But only one of them elicits a wave of action items in my email inbox.

 

[BuzzH]

I certainly don't disagree that there are more problems than resources. But I for one don't see a coal mine the same as a permanent solar facility, I think you could even question whether or not a permanent development is truly a multiple use or an exclusive use.

Was Chaffetz's proposal a hill to die on? It was almost 4x bigger but would have achieved the same outcome, private party permanent development of public lands. It sure felt like it at the time. This feels pretty similar to me.

I think people's view of multiple use is pretty well situated in fantasyland.

Multiple use doesn't mean, and was never intended to mean, that every acre have an oil well, wildlife preserve, atv trail, coal mine, solar field, migration corridor, a cow/calf pair grazing etc. etc.

The intent was to make the judicious use of the land for the greatest good, over the longest time, for the most people.

People tend to think their idea of what the greatest use or good of any particular acre/area is ALL that should be considered. Every other use is viewed as a direct conflict, which many times, is absolutely true. Other times, I think many fight for the sake of the fight, they live for the feud if you will.

The thing that should be considered is more a landscape scale view of multiple use. Again, IMO, its best to keep your powder dry and oppose the development in areas that are critical to wildlife values, recreational values, and where development will have major impacts on other uses of that public land.

IMO, that's the flaw, and also at times, the beauty of multiple use mandates.

I could also make the argument that wind farms and solar farms are not a permanent loss to development. Way different than a housing development, interstate highway, etc. and much easier to convert back to a naturalish setting. More akin to reclaiming a coal mine once the resources are extracted.

 

[FI460]

I think people's view of multiple use is pretty well situated in fantasyland.

Multiple use doesn't mean, and was never intended to mean, that every acre have an oil well, wildlife preserve, atv trail, coal mine, solar field, migration corridor, etc. etc.

The intent was to make the judicious use of the land for the greatest good, over the longest time, for the most people.

People tend to think their idea of what the greatest use or good of any particular acre/area is ALL that should be considered. Every other use is viewed as a direct conflict, which many times, is absolutely true. Other times, I think many fight for the sake of the fight, they live for the feud if you will.

The thing that should be considered is more a landscape scale view of multiple use. Again, IMO, its best to keep your powder dry and oppose the development in areas that are critical to wildlife values, recreational values, and where development will have major impacts on other uses of that public land.

IMO, that's the flaw, and also at times, the beauty of multiple use mandates.

I could also make the argument that wind farms and solar farms are not a permanent loss to development. Way different than a housing development, interstate highway, etc. and much easier to convert back to a naturalish setting. More akin to reclaiming a coal mine once the resources are extracted.

And those wind or solar farms don't come with a gaggle of humans shoveling the heads off of every snake on their quarter acre, or an indoor outdoor cat gobbling every lizard and bird it can get it's paws on. They create a developed footprint for sure, but they aren't occupied like a subdivision.

 

[Outdoor-enthusiast24]

Here is the link to comment straight to the BLM on the proposal: https://www.trcp.org/action-alert/safeguard-big-game-habitat-in-blm-solar-plan/

Let them know we want this done somewhere else.

 

[ImBillT]

History has shown us that industry rarely does anything obviously unprofitable without massive gov't intervention.

Fixed it for you.

 

[nrpate05]

Here is the link to comment straight to the BLM on the proposal: https://www.trcp.org/action-alert/safeguard-big-game-habitat-in-blm-solar-plan/

Let them know we want this done somewhere else.

Yes please comment! If not somewhere else, ask that development be done in places outside of critical wildlife habitat. In general, there is enough lower conservation value land to support the BLM's forseeable development scenario. My thinking is that this development is coming to public land whether we like it or not, through this PEIS we can help shape what that looks like and where it goes. Maybe I am too optimistic...

 

[longbow51]

What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/needville-community-concerned-busted-solar-panels-fighting-j