BHA can now celebrate. Hypocrites

[hossblur]

Then add the energy costs to drill a well/dig a hole, as well as the manufacturing costs of that steel needed to make a rig, electronics, etc. Let's see exactly what's in fracking fluid so we can tell if we're poisoning our aquifers and small towns close to development. Let's make electrical generation companies actually clean up their ash ponds rather than walk away, and let's be sure to get our two pounds of flesh out of renewable companies too.

Equal is equal. The blade issue is being solved. Just as methane emissions from flared wells can be solved, coal ash can be cleaned up, etc.

I'm staunchly against industrial scale development on public lands. That means all development, not just some. I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that it's going to happen, wildlife will continue to lose, and if we don't make the industries responsible for our existence, as well as our unwise use of resources, then we've given away our greatest treasures without any kind of recompense and our future generations will rightly hate us.

All sounds great, until rubber meets the road.

We outsource our energy to countries who have no concept of "clean". Not to mention, we have become entirely too comfortable sending other people's kids to patrol and fight over it.

From what I've read, we've outsourced wind tech, to China, and I'll assume panels as well.

Then we fancy ourselves as environmentally conscious because we can't see it so it doesn't exist.

Now, someone decided that drilling is pollution, but strip mining for cobalt and nickel, in foreign countries is good.

We don't live in a vaccum. Outsourcing energy, and the manufacturing of it's components to 3rd world, or despotic regimes, produced more pollution, not less.

I'm not anti solar panel. But you could put panels down the barrow pit, on bridges etc, on every highway in the country, and not need to destroy any more land.

We are in court now, over corner crossing. A remnant of "what we need" as a country centuries ago, because we didn't care about consequences for the future.

We ought to try and learn something.

Luckily we had TR, who didn't just go along with the narrative and politics of the day, or none of us would be hunters.

 

[brocksw]

Not opposed, but let's see the actual numbers & let's see the bonding requirement that deals with the waste in perpetuity.

To your point about waste. The way I understand it, a lot of these new gen 4 plant designs are using depleted uranium (nuclear waste). The Wyoming Terrapower plant is an example if I have my facts straight. We have A LOT of nuclear waste to use up. So to me, and I know these are not the official numbers you're asking for, new nuclear development is a step in the right direction. That's in terms of CO2, waste, efficiency, etc.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yeah, that’s definitely an important point.

However, this gas is coming from that no public lands havin’ wasteland of Tejas

I'm not 100% on these numbers, but it doesn't raises and red flags for me either, < 8% of our hydrocarbons come from federal lands. (Onshore, off shore produces like 14%)

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'd take a hard pass on nationalizing an energy project, especially a relatively small solar field. I'll leave that experiment to Venezuela and China.

See TVA

 

[Ben Lamb]

All sounds great, until rubber meets the road.

We outsource our energy to countries who have no concept of "clean". Not to mention, we have become entirely too comfortable sending other people's kids to patrol and fight over it.

From what I've read, we've outsourced wind tech, to China, and I'll assume panels as well.

Then we fancy ourselves as environmentally conscious because we can't see it so it doesn't exist.

Now, someone decided that drilling is pollution, but strip mining for cobalt and nickel, in foreign countries is good.

We don't live in a vaccum. Outsourcing energy, and the manufacturing of it's components to 3rd world, or despotic regimes, produced more pollution, not less.

I'm not anti solar panel. But you could put panels down the barrow pit, on bridges etc, on every highway in the country, and not need to destroy any more land.

We are in court now, over corner crossing. A remnant of "what we need" as a country centuries ago, because we didn't care about consequences for the future.

We ought to try and learn something.

Luckily we had TR, who didn't just go along with the narrative and politics of the day, or none of us would be hunters.

 

[Ben Lamb]

See TVA

Also See: The Interstate Highwway System

 

[Ben Lamb]

To your point about waste. The way I understand it, a lot of these new gen 4 plant designs are using depleted uranium (nuclear waste). The Wyoming Terrapower plant is an example if I have my facts straight. We have A LOT of nuclear waste to use up. So to me, and I know these are not the official numbers you're asking for, new nuclear development is a step in the right direction. That's in terms of CO2, waste, efficiency, etc.

You still have to deal with the waste produced by the fuel rods used.

FYI, my father died from Renal Cell Carconoma, caused by mining uranium for the nuclear funfest we had in the Cold War. Tens of thousands of Americans died from that activity, and the testing of bombs later. Let's be sure to add the tens of billions the gov't paid out for healthcare when we consider the cost of nuclear as well.

 

[Ben Lamb]

All sounds great, until rubber meets the road.

We outsource our energy to countries who have no concept of "clean". Not to mention, we have become entirely too comfortable sending other people's kids to patrol and fight over it.

From what I've read, we've outsourced wind tech, to China, and I'll assume panels as well.

Then we fancy ourselves as environmentally conscious because we can't see it so it doesn't exist.

Now, someone decided that drilling is pollution, but strip mining for cobalt and nickel, in foreign countries is good.

We don't live in a vaccum. Outsourcing energy, and the manufacturing of it's components to 3rd world, or despotic regimes, produced more pollution, not less.

I'm not anti solar panel. But you could put panels down the barrow pit, on bridges etc, on every highway in the country, and not need to destroy any more land.

We are in court now, over corner crossing. A remnant of "what we need" as a country centuries ago, because we didn't care about consequences for the future.

We ought to try and learn something.

Luckily we had TR, who didn't just go along with the narrative and politics of the day, or none of us would be hunters.

1.) "We" don't outsource our energy. The free market and Capitalism dictate much of where, when and how stuff gets drilled, mined & produced. Money drives this issue, not the gov't, and certainly not we, the people. It is always going to be cheaper to do business in the third or developing world, and it's always going to be at the behest of those same companies that the environmental regulations aren't as tough as elsewhere, but even that is a misunderstanding of what's happening (Look at Costa Rica for example - sure tough to do any development there).

2.) Again - companies outsourced due to costs and profit margins. 100% there exists NIMBYism and I see it daily, and it's hypocritical, but it's also not the real reason that mining, etc is done elsewhere. The issue you're looking for economics, not regulation.

3.) Drilling is pollution when you look at the issue of ground water contamination, fracking fluids & climate but this is where you reduce your argument to absurdism. Do you really think that there's a bunch of fart-sniffing liberals running around saying things like "Screw the Congo, I'm just glad New Jersey isn't getting mined!"?

4.) Energy is a global commodity. It is traded on a global scale. Isolationist ideology is killed by the free hand of capitalism.

5.) Totally agree with this. Parking Lots w/ solar panels, rooftop solar, new construction mandates, etc along with decentralized grids focused on neighborhood power delivery rather than entire states, etc - make the power system small, smart and integrated, and reduce the reliance on monopolistic energy firms.

5.) The world changes. Welcome to the world (Corner crossing)

6.) TR made compromises every single day on these issues. That's what the whole lesson about Pinchot & Muir being his mentors is about: Finding the balance & approaching natural resource issues in the most informed manner we can, because we only borrow these lands from our children, and they are the true owners, just as their kids are, etc.


So while we equivocate around which kind of development sucks the most, my position is they all suck, but we have to live with it because Multiple Use is exactly the system that TR set up.

 

[brocksw]

You still have to deal with the waste produced by the fuel rods used.

FYI, my father died from Renal Cell Carconoma, caused by mining uranium for the nuclear funfest we had in the Cold War. Tens of thousands of Americans died from that activity, and the testing of bombs later. Let's be sure to add the tens of billions the gov't paid out for healthcare when we consider the cost of nuclear as well.

Sorry to hear about your father, Ben.

Again, you may want to do some more looking into this, as I am no nuclear scientist and I might be getting some things backwards in my skull that's probably low on brain space due to the thicker than average bone housing. As a matter of fact, I'll demonstrate to you right now that I'm not smart enough or qualified to be a nuclear scientist.
But the way I understand this is that the old 1st and 2nd gen reactors would only burn less than 1% of the total mass of the uranium in the reactor. That's because less than 1% is fissile. The other 99% was considered nuclear waste and sent to places like Paducah, KY. These 4th gen plants recycle that waste into these new 4th gen reactors that both burn and "breed" (convert) the uranium to get our reaction out of the recycled rod. I heard it explained like burning a candle. This leaves almost no waste as I understand it, so that's one of the benefits of 4th gen plants like Terrapower in Wy. We already have the fuel stateside and it actually becomes a net reduction in nuclear waste.

DISCLAIMER: I'm a Dummy

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sorry to hear about your father, Ben.

Again, you may want to do some more looking into this, as I am no nuclear scientist and I might be getting some things backwards in my skull that's probably low on brain space due to the thicker than average bone housing. As a matter of fact, I'll demonstrate to you right now that I'm not smart enough or qualified to be a nuclear scientist.
But the way I understand this is that the old 1st and 2nd gen reactors would only burn less than 1% of the total mass of the uranium in the reactor. That's because less than 1% is fissile. The other 99% was considered nuclear waste and sent to places like Paducah, KY. These 4th gen plants recycle that waste into these new 4th gen reactors that both burn and "breed" (convert) the uranium to get our reaction out of the recycled rod. I heard it explained like burning a candle. This leaves almost no waste as I understand it, so that's one of the benefits of 4th gen plants like Terrapower in Wy. We already have the fuel stateside and it actually becomes a net reduction in nuclear waste.

DISCLAIMER: I'm a Dummy

I concede my view is jaded by my experience. If that's the case, then I'm less nervous, but the end product is still something that's toxic for hundreds of years and we know the other costs associated with nuclear. Just as we know the costs associated with oil spills, etc. Nothing is free when it comes to energy.

And you're my kind of dummy, dummy.

 

[88man]

Now do the tons of CO2 that the wind farm generates versus the gas or oil.

Because that's a major point of switching to renewables that seems to get glossed over here in favor of looking only at land usage.

So my opinion is don't put the wind and solar on my public lands, way to inefficient use of my space for me and the states wildlife. You are free to put the wind and solar on your private lands and please use your own personal funds to do the investment.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So my opinion is don't put the wind and solar on my public lands, way to inefficient use of my space for me and the states wildlife. You are free to put the wind and solar on your private lands and please use your own personal funds to do the investment.

Your opinion is trumped by the law. So, other than changing the law, how do you propose to stop those developments?

 

[88man]

Your opinion is trumped by the law. So, other than changing the law, how do you propose to stop those developments?

I'm guessing its good sage grouse habitat on a wind farm? I guess I would support or hope a group like BHA would work to change the laws and stop wind and solar developments on public ground. Instead they promote or endorse energy development on public ground.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm guessing its good sage grouse habitat on a wind farm? I guess I would support or hope a group like BHA would work to change the laws and stop wind and solar developments on public ground. Instead they promote or endorse energy development on public ground.

This is the absurdist view of the world. My point is not that wind is good or bad, it's that there is a law that mandates the multiple use of public land, and the bill that folks are questioning actually had mitigation requirements that didn't exist before.

And I think it's incredibly naive to think that energy policy is going to be changed at the legislative level, especially given this current congress or the next clown show that takes over in 23.

 

[hossblur]

1.) "We" don't outsource our energy. The free market and Capitalism dictate much of where, when and how stuff gets drilled, mined & produced. Money drives this issue, not the gov't, and certainly not we, the people. It is always going to be cheaper to do business in the third or developing world, and it's always going to be at the behest of those same companies that the environmental regulations aren't as tough as elsewhere, but even that is a misunderstanding of what's happening (Look at Costa Rica for example - sure tough to do any development there).

2.) Again - companies outsourced due to costs and profit margins. 100% there exists NIMBYism and I see it daily, and it's hypocritical, but it's also not the real reason that mining, etc is done elsewhere. The issue you're looking for economics, not regulation.

3.) Drilling is pollution when you look at the issue of ground water contamination, fracking fluids & climate but this is where you reduce your argument to absurdism. Do you really think that there's a bunch of fart-sniffing liberals running around saying things like "Screw the Congo, I'm just glad New Jersey isn't getting mined!"?

4.) Energy is a global commodity. It is traded on a global scale. Isolationist ideology is killed by the free hand of capitalism.

5.) Totally agree with this. Parking Lots w/ solar panels, rooftop solar, new construction mandates, etc along with decentralized grids focused on neighborhood power delivery rather than entire states, etc - make the power system small, smart and integrated, and reduce the reliance on monopolistic energy firms.

5.) The world changes. Welcome to the world (Corner crossing)

6.) TR made compromises every single day on these issues. That's what the whole lesson about Pinchot & Muir being his mentors is about: Finding the balance & approaching natural resource issues in the most informed manner we can, because we only borrow these lands from our children, and they are the true owners, just as their kids are, etc.


So while we equivocate around which kind of development sucks the most, my position is they all suck, but we have to live with it because Multiple Use is exactly the system that TR set up.

Of course we outsource our energy.

We put environment regs on companies doing business in the US, but we don't extend that. The current administration is begging Venezuela to pump oil. So it's not opposed to pumping oil under strict regulations, it's opposed to being seen pumping oil.

Play word games all day, but if pumping (drilling) oil is bad, it's no less bad south of us.

And in fact, it's WORSE than it being done in US or Canada.

NIMBY. Call it world markets, call it whatever, but 1st world nations do it cleaner, so shutting them down to favor Saudi, Russia, or Venezuela, is outsourcing the pollution.

Companies outsource due to cost. Yup. As long as we allow it.

Funny how Russia invades Ukraine, suddenly we can ban oil. Venezuela, Saudi, pollute, we can't.

It can be done, I hate to point to pre Biden, but, facts are facts.

We are looking at an EV revolution. Great. I spend $400-$500 a month on gas, I'd be fine not doing that.

But at what cost? How many tons of dirt need to be moved for a battery? Are we openly discussing the cost of EV? NO.

But we, in the US will require miners to submit to regs, so the car companies, will outsource to Africa, which means China, and because it's not in our eyesight, we will pretend.

"The world changes". The BIGGEST copout ever.

Does it? Does more dirt come available? More acreage?

The easy, copout answer, and the one that BHA took is, "we need it". Do we? Have we exhausted the already developed acreage for turbine or panel housing? Or, are we fine AGAIN trading land for political expediency?

There's a reason, these projects are in rural Utah, and Central Wyoming. Bet your ass, when they(they won't) show up in Suburban areas, suddenly, inventive creations will happen.


Don't forget, it's not JUST a 4800 acre solar farm, it's infrastructure outside of the farm. Roads, substations, transmission lines, etc.

I'm sure the Chicago company that got the bid, gives a rats ass about hunting, fishing, public land

 

[lpcoutdoors]

Ya'll have talked about a ton here, and I haven't been able to follow it all, sorry. I'll just say this about BHA and its apparent support of energy development on public lands. Its like on this other thread, this saying that goes something like, "if you aren't sitting at the table, you might be on the table" or something like that. I used to be pissed that Coastal Conservation Association was not just totally against all commercial fishing. I eventually came to realize that at some level, distasteful as it may be, a conservation org has to "play ball" so to speak and do their best to work within some unfortunate realities in order to mitigate and lessen damage. I have no knowledge of why BHA has expressed some support of energy development on public lands, but, as with offshore oil drilling, its gonna happen. So stay at the table. I liked what one poster noted, they agreed with 80-90% of what BHA does, that seems like a pretty high agreement, cause we ain't gonna agree with each other on all things. But we can sure strive to figure out this multiple use reality in a way that works toward some overall benefits.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Didn't read every comment but it seems pretty obvious that BHA thinks:

1) Energy extraction will be done on public lands.
2) Climate change is such a threat to wildlife in the long term that it is willing to sacrifice some public land/habitat in perpetuity for power generation instead of short term extraction projects.

While I think BHA should oppose all destruction of habitat on federal land, I also think they are making the wrong bet when it comes to long term energy solutions. It's going to be sad if, in 20 years, India and China have a kickass nuclear fleet and we've covered our country with solar panels and wind farms and are STILL burning coal and NG. Build a nuclear facility in my back yard please (we do actually have one about 80 miles away).

ngl tho, I also have a special hatred toward solar "farms" that have been popping up in my area. These have literally replaced actual farms due to the economic incentives especially on marginal farmland. They're ugly, u can't do anything with them, may as well be a parking lot. People have approached my FIL about converting his land and I really hope he doesn't give in. We hunt deer and doves and geese on that land. It feels like part of our humanity. But what if the money is too good? Farming is hard and unpredictable. I wish CRP was more competitive.

I also can't help but think this exception is the result of mission creep within BHA. It's just a strange concession to make for an organization like this. Feels like it is signaling by/to a certain type of person. Oh well, they still do good work.

 

[Hunting Wife]

After spending too much time reading this thread, my biggest takeaway is that many people still don’t understand that multiple use is a mandate. Resource extraction and energy generation are going to happen on public lands. That is one of their many purposes. Your options are to either ignore that and be relegated to the sidelines, or get to work and help figure out how to make that happen in the most responsible way with the least impacts and with rules to ensure any cleanup and remediation costs are borne by those who made the profit.

It’s going to happen whether you like it or not, regardless of what administration is in power, or what China does, or whether BHA puts out a position statement in opposition, or….

 

[Buffs35]

Of course we outsource our energy.

We put environment regs on companies doing business in the US, but we don't extend that. The current administration is begging Venezuela to pump oil. So it's not opposed to pumping oil under strict regulations, it's opposed to being seen pumping oil.

Play word games all day, but if pumping (drilling) oil is bad, it's no less bad south of us.

And in fact, it's WORSE than it being done in US or Canada.

NIMBY. Call it world markets, call it whatever, but 1st world nations do it cleaner, so shutting them down to favor Saudi, Russia, or Venezuela, is outsourcing the pollution.

Companies outsource due to cost. Yup. As long as we allow it.

Funny how Russia invades Ukraine, suddenly we can ban oil. Venezuela, Saudi, pollute, we can't.

It can be done, I hate to point to pre Biden, but, facts are facts.

We are looking at an EV revolution. Great. I spend $400-$500 a month on gas, I'd be fine not doing that.

But at what cost? How many tons of dirt need to be moved for a battery? Are we openly discussing the cost of EV? NO.

But we, in the US will require miners to submit to regs, so the car companies, will outsource to Africa, which means China, and because it's not in our eyesight, we will pretend.

"The world changes". The BIGGEST copout ever.

Does it? Does more dirt come available? More acreage?

The easy, copout answer, and the one that BHA took is, "we need it". Do we? Have we exhausted the already developed acreage for turbine or panel housing? Or, are we fine AGAIN trading land for political expediency?

There's a reason, these projects are in rural Utah, and Central Wyoming. Bet your ass, when they(they won't) show up in Suburban areas, suddenly, inventive creations will happen.


Don't forget, it's not JUST a 4800 acre solar farm, it's infrastructure outside of the farm. Roads, substations, transmission lines, etc.

I'm sure the Chicago company that got the bid, gives a rats ass about hunting, fishing, public land

 

[BrentD]

After spending too much time reading this thread, my biggest takeaway is that many people still don’t understand that multiple use is a mandate. Resource extraction and energy generation are going to happen on public lands. That is one of their many purposes.

I think you have to recognize that solar arrays are not compatible with the multiple user philosophy, unlike, for instance hunting, hiking grazing and others.

Once it's gone, it ain't never coming back.