D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
The subtext here, both this bill and the Mike Lee housing bill is sell/lease whatever fed lands because they can be had at below market value.
BHA can now celebrate. Hypocrites
- Thread starter hossblur
- Start date
The subtext here, both this bill and the Mike Lee housing bill is sell/lease whatever fed lands because they can be had at below market value.
Do you need someone to read it to you?
I listened to Rinella once, he was talking about the Utah "transfer" clowns.
He said(not quoting) that he'd like to ask them if a piece of ground has value, for just being a piece of ground, and not of value for producing income or revenue.
Apparently both BHA and Mike Lee, look at ground as having more productivity for creating revenue.
Secondly, does anyone believe the land snagged, in this case in Utah, that the 10% will go to that hunting unit? That county? Or are we sacrificing "useless" ground to finance more popular areas.
Last.
Anyone believe they are going to stick solar farms outside Jackson Hole? Park City? Sun Valley? Why are the bulk of these projects planned in rural Utah, rural Wyoming?
BHA advocating, and they do, for public land development, would be like RMEF advocating for eradication of elk.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Hey hossblur,
Can you post up your comments opposing this solar development?
Thanks.
Can you post up your comments opposing this solar development?
Thanks.
RobertD
Well-known member
I would think just to get to bare dirt with all panels and infrastructure removed would be as bad as building one new. If I understand correctly that remediation would involve more than that, I'd imagine it could be more expensive still.
Lots of knowledgeable people on here. My concern with renewables are the unintended consequences. We don’t know what we don’t know about renewables. Wind seems pretty inefficient and we are finding wind farms kill a lot of birds. There are environmental issues with renewables, some of which we don’t even know yet. Look up some lithium mines for ev batteries. With oil and gas we have a lot of history and understand the risks and have well planned ways to remediate. It’s just a shot in the dark with renewables in regards to the effectiveness of it as a power supply and the environmental risks. Maybe if we slowed down and allowed the transition to new energy progress at its own pace we would be way better off. BHA needs to treat any energy development on public land the same. They are not and that’s bull.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
Because it’s flat? And sunny? Maybe?
So is Miami.
I don't like solar farms on public land.
I also don't like the miles of wind turbines all over your state.
Good enough?
I heard about this one from a contractor I know who was thinking of building a trailer/rv park nearby to house workers. I'm not surprised it was the first, a R state, an R county. We should, sacrifice Utah, to light up LA. After all, weve been doing that for decades, IPP in Delta.
The one in Pine Valley, the southern RAC in Utah is concerned with. Yes, if it comes to my RAC, I will comment.
You care to explain, as a leader in BHA, the difference in acreage lost to oil rigs, vs, solar farm or wind farms? Specifically how acreage lost to "green" is better than acreage lost to other?
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
When you post your written comments submitted to the BLM regarding this solar farm.
Thanks.
I didn't submit written comment about this solar farm
Like I said, I only heard about it from a want to be investor.
Now, I answered you, feel free to answer me
Feel free to read the screen shot I posted though. You know who I was talking to, I'm guessing personally.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Huh, funny with your involvement and level of concern about wind and solar farms you would not hear about it or comment. Seems odd it happened right there in your state without you knowing the particulars?
I don't care much for public lands being developed either, but it's a reality that happens under multiple use doctrine. The United States need energy, public lands will be developed.
What is crap, is that all development doesn't seem to be held to the same standards, NEPA requirements, bonding for reclamation, the government picking winners/losers, etc.
Went looking for something else, saw this. I actually agree with this
Now take out HOUSES" and add solar farms in its place. Other than the name Mike Lee, what's the difference?
"While the HOUSES Act does little to address the root cause of the housing crisis, it does plenty to facilitate the transfer of our cherished public lands and at a discounted rate,” said BHA Conservation Director John Gale. “Given Senator Lee’s well-established track record of proposing legislation targeting public lands, it is difficult to see this bill as anything other than an attempt to strip the public of our public lands.”
As the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife, BHA is opposed to any legislation such as S. 4062 that would limit the ability for sportsmen and women, as well as all Americans, to access our outdoor heritage. BHA will continue to speak out against this bill and any other attempts to sell off our invaluable public lands and waters. "
-BHA WEBSITE
OUR MISSION
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers seeks to ensure North America's outdoor heritage of hunting and fishing in a natural setting, through education and work on behalf of wild public lands, waters, and wildlife.A Vision for Backcountry Conservation
Our freedom to hunt and fish depends on habitat. While many of us enjoy hunting and fishing on a range of landscapes, including farm fields and reservoirs, there is something special – even magical – about hunting deep in the backcountry or fishing on a remote river.Wilderness hunting and fishing deliver a sense of freedom, challenge and solitude that is increasingly trampled by the twin pressures of growing population and increasing technology. Many treasured fish and wildlife species – such as cutthroat trout, grizzly bear and bighorn sheep – thrive in wilderness. Others, like elk and mule deer, benefit from wilderness. From the Steens Mountain Wilderness in Oregon to the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho and the Boundary Waters of Minnesota, BHA members treasure America's wilderness system and strive to add to it.
We take the advice of Theodore Roosevelt: "Preserve large tracts of wilderness ... for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether or not he is a man of means."
A Hunt for Wild Lands
A land facing ceaseless development. A people overly reliant upon technology and motorized equipment. A quality of life – particularly the sporting life – that seems increasingly in jeopardy.These are some of the basic tenets of our call to arms – for North American sportsmen and -women to stand up for the wild country and fish and wildlife that depend on it. Now, more than ever before, we need wild lands: places to rekindle the fire at the heart of the human soul. Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a nonpartisan group of sportsmen and -women who are standing up for these places and for the outdoor opportunities they represent.
Decades have passed since President Ronald Reagan signed the last significant wilderness bill. Today, with the increased pressures of natural resource extraction and continued threats to the high-quality hunting and angling experience, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is taking a leadership role in advocating for the conservation of wild places. It’s time for national conservation groups from all corners of the continent to set aside differences in philosophy or politics. It’s time to shake hands. It’s time to get something done. The continuation of the very things we love – hunting, fishing, wild places, wildlife – depends upon our ability to move forward.
The visionaries who gave us this great legacy of wildlands – individuals like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold – realized something that sometimes is forgotten today: Without wild places for wild animals, there will be no place for sportsmen to hunt and fish.
"This country has been swinging the hammer of development so long and so hard that it has forgotten the anvil of wilderness which gave value and significance to its labors. The momentum of our blows is so unprecedented that the remaining remnant of wilderness will be pounded into road-dust long before we find out its values."
These prophetic words were written by Aldo Leopold in 1935.
BHA Mission statement.
Not a mention of horse trading land for Green New Deal. No mention of sacrificing "ugly, flat, non productive" land for 10% check to save favored places.
"pounded into road dust", now facilitated by a "public lands advocacy group".
Buzz, I missed this particular farm, because I bought my own line and there are real big issues here like the Utah Lake give away, diverting Bear River water out of the wetlands, Mike Lee election. I missed this one, until it was past comment time.
"The D are only better than the R on public land because the D haven't found a way to profit off of it."
That's obviously no longer true. The D, found their way.
Last edited:
brocksw
Well-known member
Rethread this thread and am still puzzled how this is hypocrisy. When looking at the OG projects @wllm1313 used as an example earlier, they are insanely different from the bill supported in 2019 and the specific project in Utah.
Those OG projects listed earlier are all specific and extremely high value areas that a huge portion of hunters and outdoorsmen deem too valuable to open to industry. They all have extremely high value to wildlife and/or unique ecosystems. Over 40,000 wells were permitted and approved on public lands during the last decade, an overwhelming majority were not opposed by BHA. Miles and miles of gathering lines were put in the ground on public land, an overwhelming majority were not objected to by BHA. The only rub for BHA came when they tried to open these specific high value areas like ANWR that were otherwise off limits to industry, and rightfully so. I agree with keeping those special places and habitats out of the reach of Industry as much as possible.
But BHA and TRCP supporting the Public Lands Renewable Energy Act of 2019 was not those bills. It was not a bill or an EO that was opening an otherwise closed area to development. It was not removing or changing designations so industry could enter, it was not pushing ANY specific project to go through on any piece of ground or habitat, high value or low. It was largely a solar regulation bill that was specifically trying to promote development while also establishing regulations and funding too offset impacts and ensuring that measures were taken to protect habitat.
"Under Section 4 of PLREDA, the Secretary of the Interior will be charged with identifying priority areas for wind, solar and geothermal projects using the BLM’s 2012 Western Solar Plan as a model. This model provides criteria to be considered in accessing transmission lines and avoiding and minimizing conflicts with fish and wildlife habitat and recreational areas."
blmsolar.anl.gov
Excerpt from BLM's 2012 Western Solar plan:
"Project Authorizations
The ROD for the Final PEIS for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States did not authorize any on-the-ground solar energy development. The Solar Energy Program requires additional, site-specific analyses prior to approval of utility-scale solar energy projects. The robust analysis in the Solar PEIS will be incorporated into the evaluation of future site-specific projects through “tiering.” The analyses from the Solar PEIS will be applied, to the extent appropriate, to future proposed utility-scale solar energy projects, allowing future project analyses to focus on site-specific conditions and issues not fully addressed in the Solar PEIS. This is expected to streamline future decision-making on proposed utility-scale solar energy developments on BLM-administered public lands. This website contains links to the analysis that will be incorporated into future project authorizations."
It was certainly promoting or encouraging or prioritizing some development (25 gigawatts by 2025). I absolutely get the heart burn with that. But, that's far cry, maybe even the opposite of removing regulations to go into ANWR.
Additionally, any notion that OG impacts are these short windows of impact is disingenuous or naive. The average life of a well is 20-30 years, but many go longer. We have wells in ND that were drilled in the early 80s and are still actively producing. In fact, that 1980s ND oil boom led to a loss of 250,000 thousand acres of Forest Service land that was deemed "Suitable for Wilderness". We went from 500,000 acres of potential capital W wilderness to 40k because of a single oil boom....and there's not a solar panel in sight.
That loss of acreage came from the establishment and improvement of oil and gas infrastructure. Roads, pipelines, and wells. Because once an area has the presents of industry it is no longer "suitable for wilderness". More than half of those lost acres in ND aren't even Roadless areas or Non-motorized areas anymore. We're talking 40 years and counting. The only way to reverse that is through plugging and reclamation of thousands of wells, and even more difficult, the removal and reclamation of thousands of miles of gravel roads.
Now if someone says to me, well it's better because I can still kill a mule deer next to an oil well. That's true, but also ridiculous. We have leading big game biologists like Kevin Monteith that have done extensive studies on the effects of OG development on mule deer. We can prove that mule deer use those habitats less, and in some cases abandon areas altogether. We have proof that that mule deer leave groceries on the landscape because of the presence of oil and gas infrastructure. Literally the very groceries that are the foundation of population stability and growth. This is scientific fact.
Now, is a single oil pad better than a 4,000 acre solar field? Absolutely. Is there renewable energy environmental impacts that are equal too or worse than oil and gas? Absolutely. Are democrats seemingly avoiding that discussion? In my eyes, yes.
But to get all wound up over a solar field in Utah, next to gigantic pig farm, that the BLM approved through an established site review process that specifically looks for areas of low value that could work for solar development, just seems like more manufactured outrage for someone looking to start trouble where there was none previously.
And to close, BHA lead a national campaign against the twin metals copper mine in the boundary waters, as many of you are well aware. What sector of the energy industry would a copper mine benefit the most? Is it coal? Is it oil? No, it is far and away the renewable energy industry. So if BHA is so biased towards renewables because of political bias, then why would they advocate against that copper mine?
Maybe, just maybe, it had less to do with what energy industry is doing the developing and more to do with where the development occurs and what impacts to public lands, wild places, and wildlife that development has.
I have not reviewed in detail this specific site in Utah. Perhaps there was an endangered tortoise or lizard living in that desert. Maybe this is a bad project. But on the surface, placing this project next to a giant pig farm (which looks larger in surface area than the proposed solar field), seems like a fair compromise. It certainly seems like it meets the criteria of being low value or low impact.
Those OG projects listed earlier are all specific and extremely high value areas that a huge portion of hunters and outdoorsmen deem too valuable to open to industry. They all have extremely high value to wildlife and/or unique ecosystems. Over 40,000 wells were permitted and approved on public lands during the last decade, an overwhelming majority were not opposed by BHA. Miles and miles of gathering lines were put in the ground on public land, an overwhelming majority were not objected to by BHA. The only rub for BHA came when they tried to open these specific high value areas like ANWR that were otherwise off limits to industry, and rightfully so. I agree with keeping those special places and habitats out of the reach of Industry as much as possible.
But BHA and TRCP supporting the Public Lands Renewable Energy Act of 2019 was not those bills. It was not a bill or an EO that was opening an otherwise closed area to development. It was not removing or changing designations so industry could enter, it was not pushing ANY specific project to go through on any piece of ground or habitat, high value or low. It was largely a solar regulation bill that was specifically trying to promote development while also establishing regulations and funding too offset impacts and ensuring that measures were taken to protect habitat.
"Under Section 4 of PLREDA, the Secretary of the Interior will be charged with identifying priority areas for wind, solar and geothermal projects using the BLM’s 2012 Western Solar Plan as a model. This model provides criteria to be considered in accessing transmission lines and avoiding and minimizing conflicts with fish and wildlife habitat and recreational areas."
Solar Energy Permitting Resources
This website provides up-to-date information on the BLM's Solar Energy Permitting Resources.
"Project Authorizations
The ROD for the Final PEIS for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States did not authorize any on-the-ground solar energy development. The Solar Energy Program requires additional, site-specific analyses prior to approval of utility-scale solar energy projects. The robust analysis in the Solar PEIS will be incorporated into the evaluation of future site-specific projects through “tiering.” The analyses from the Solar PEIS will be applied, to the extent appropriate, to future proposed utility-scale solar energy projects, allowing future project analyses to focus on site-specific conditions and issues not fully addressed in the Solar PEIS. This is expected to streamline future decision-making on proposed utility-scale solar energy developments on BLM-administered public lands. This website contains links to the analysis that will be incorporated into future project authorizations."
It was certainly promoting or encouraging or prioritizing some development (25 gigawatts by 2025). I absolutely get the heart burn with that. But, that's far cry, maybe even the opposite of removing regulations to go into ANWR.
Additionally, any notion that OG impacts are these short windows of impact is disingenuous or naive. The average life of a well is 20-30 years, but many go longer. We have wells in ND that were drilled in the early 80s and are still actively producing. In fact, that 1980s ND oil boom led to a loss of 250,000 thousand acres of Forest Service land that was deemed "Suitable for Wilderness". We went from 500,000 acres of potential capital W wilderness to 40k because of a single oil boom....and there's not a solar panel in sight.
That loss of acreage came from the establishment and improvement of oil and gas infrastructure. Roads, pipelines, and wells. Because once an area has the presents of industry it is no longer "suitable for wilderness". More than half of those lost acres in ND aren't even Roadless areas or Non-motorized areas anymore. We're talking 40 years and counting. The only way to reverse that is through plugging and reclamation of thousands of wells, and even more difficult, the removal and reclamation of thousands of miles of gravel roads.
Now if someone says to me, well it's better because I can still kill a mule deer next to an oil well. That's true, but also ridiculous. We have leading big game biologists like Kevin Monteith that have done extensive studies on the effects of OG development on mule deer. We can prove that mule deer use those habitats less, and in some cases abandon areas altogether. We have proof that that mule deer leave groceries on the landscape because of the presence of oil and gas infrastructure. Literally the very groceries that are the foundation of population stability and growth. This is scientific fact.
Now, is a single oil pad better than a 4,000 acre solar field? Absolutely. Is there renewable energy environmental impacts that are equal too or worse than oil and gas? Absolutely. Are democrats seemingly avoiding that discussion? In my eyes, yes.
But to get all wound up over a solar field in Utah, next to gigantic pig farm, that the BLM approved through an established site review process that specifically looks for areas of low value that could work for solar development, just seems like more manufactured outrage for someone looking to start trouble where there was none previously.
And to close, BHA lead a national campaign against the twin metals copper mine in the boundary waters, as many of you are well aware. What sector of the energy industry would a copper mine benefit the most? Is it coal? Is it oil? No, it is far and away the renewable energy industry. So if BHA is so biased towards renewables because of political bias, then why would they advocate against that copper mine?
Maybe, just maybe, it had less to do with what energy industry is doing the developing and more to do with where the development occurs and what impacts to public lands, wild places, and wildlife that development has.
I have not reviewed in detail this specific site in Utah. Perhaps there was an endangered tortoise or lizard living in that desert. Maybe this is a bad project. But on the surface, placing this project next to a giant pig farm (which looks larger in surface area than the proposed solar field), seems like a fair compromise. It certainly seems like it meets the criteria of being low value or low impact.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@brocksw why should I join BHA what do you all stand for?
Well @wllm1313 I will direct you to our website...
Today, with the increased pressures of natural resource extraction and continued threats to the high-quality hunting and angling experience, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is taking a leadership role in advocating for the conservation of wild places. It’s time for national conservation groups from all corners of the continent to set aside differences in philosophy or politics. It’s time to shake hands. It’s time to get something done. The continuation of the very things we love – hunting, fishing, wild places, wildlife – depends upon our ability to move forward.
...
"This country has been swinging the hammer of development so long and so hard that it has forgotten the anvil of wilderness which gave value and significance to its labors. The momentum of our blows is so unprecedented that the remaining remnant of wilderness will be pounded into road-dust long before we find out its values."
Well @brocksw that's a mission statement I can get behind.
...
If BHA EVER PROMOTES DEVELOPEMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS IT'S HYPOCRISY.
The letter Land Tawney should have wrote:
"BHA is aware of PLREDA, and we are following this piece of legislation closely. We acknowledge the mission of BLM and USFS is for mixed use and that some energy development is inevitable. BHA has found some problematic language in the bill and is asking law makers that it be removed. Specifically calling for a rush for development, providing a short timeline that could lead to a lack of careful consideration.
Going forward BHA will review the potential impacts of renewable energy development in the same manner and with the same concern that we look at any development of our public lands."
We can cherry pick examples and joust about pigs till the cows come home but this ^ is/was my issue. I've said many times on this thread that BHA does a good job at looking at OG, and that OG development has had massive impacts on public lands.
Well @wllm1313 I will direct you to our website...
Today, with the increased pressures of natural resource extraction and continued threats to the high-quality hunting and angling experience, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is taking a leadership role in advocating for the conservation of wild places. It’s time for national conservation groups from all corners of the continent to set aside differences in philosophy or politics. It’s time to shake hands. It’s time to get something done. The continuation of the very things we love – hunting, fishing, wild places, wildlife – depends upon our ability to move forward.
...
"This country has been swinging the hammer of development so long and so hard that it has forgotten the anvil of wilderness which gave value and significance to its labors. The momentum of our blows is so unprecedented that the remaining remnant of wilderness will be pounded into road-dust long before we find out its values."
Well @brocksw that's a mission statement I can get behind.
...
If BHA EVER PROMOTES DEVELOPEMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS IT'S HYPOCRISY.
The letter Land Tawney should have wrote:
"BHA is aware of PLREDA, and we are following this piece of legislation closely. We acknowledge the mission of BLM and USFS is for mixed use and that some energy development is inevitable. BHA has found some problematic language in the bill and is asking law makers that it be removed. Specifically calling for a rush for development, providing a short timeline that could lead to a lack of careful consideration.
Going forward BHA will review the potential impacts of renewable energy development in the same manner and with the same concern that we look at any development of our public lands."
We can cherry pick examples and joust about pigs till the cows come home but this ^ is/was my issue. I've said many times on this thread that BHA does a good job at looking at OG, and that OG development has had massive impacts on public lands.
Last edited by a moderator:
brocksw
Well-known member
I'll agree with that letter from wllm.
I'll add, this is the first of these. Unless pork production in Utah is larger than I think, the pig farm neighbor reason is now exhausted.
I was a member of BHA in 2018 and 19.
I don't remember being polled, or asked about my support for the bill. I just blindly read the Mission Statement and thought it meant what it said. I didn't sign up to be a voting block for leadership's personal politics.
Had their mission stayed they were only for development of public land for support of the Green New Deal, I wouldn't have joined, nor would their be grounds to call out their hypocrisy in this case
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
After post and post and post ... we get it. You joined, but now you are out and remain critical and opposed to BHA. Now the discussion seems to be wasting HT space and continuing to be redumbdant.
Could someone post an image of a dead equine with a BHA brand being flogged?
T
tjones
Guest
Ya'll going after RMEF for their nonexistent comments every time there is a bad elk bill at the legislature?
They have a mission statement too.
They have a mission statement too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
