Goodbye to BHA

[Hilljackoutlaw]

 

[Ben Sellers]

Maybe we should create an alternative public lands protection group that is more attractive to conservatives. It could work with BHA when there is common cause and not when there isn’t. I believe BHA was started by a couple of people around a campfire, there could just as easily be one that started by people that are unhappy on a hunting forum.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Let's build windmills along the entire length of the southern border and build walls on each side of them. Two birds one stone. Disclaimer: the two birds killed with the stone does not count towards the birds killed by the windmills now and in the future.

 

[Sytes]

Stopped my membership with BHA a couple years ago. I value several aspects of their operation though others, not so. Some great people and some real shitheads, as with any organization. They're a bit too extreme, "All or nothing". There is little moderation in their actions.

 

[bullbugle307]

I can still hunt a clear-cut, grazing, and around oil and gas development. Areas around wind turbines and solar farms are no longer multiple use, those areas become single use and off limits to other users.

I can show you areas near Laramie where I used to be able to hunt elk and pronghorn that are now developed windfarms and I can no longer hunt there.

At no point was I advocating for windmills on public lands Buzz. Just the opposite. I'm just pointing out the nievete and pitfalls of someone saying no profitable development on public lands whatsoever. And then going on to think that logging and grazing never resulted in any roads being cut or structures being built.

Personally, I'm none too happy about the fact that there's mess of landlocked state land between our cities that could've been accessed by City of Cheyenne property. Instead, they're building a windfarm in that area. I'm not losing access, because the access was never there, but it could've been and never will be now.

 

[Schism]

Recent release by BHA: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/public_lands_renewable_energy_development_act#/112/

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Recent release by BHA: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/public_lands_renewable_energy_development_act#/112/

I emailed BHA and essentially was just sent a carbon copy of this....

With this response they fail to address any of my issues with the bill.

1. The bill gives renewable energy the ability to side stepping current environmental regulations and it fast tracks projects.

2. Permanent installation of facilities on public land, making them defacto private.

3. No multiple use.

4. The bill doesn't re-working the way royalties/rentals are paid for federal land. They cite the example of a 10,000 acre wind far in Ocotillo county providing, $350,000 of revenue a year.
If this was OG there would be the initial bonus bid price, say $1,000 an acre so that's $10,000,000. Then assuming a decent area drilling 2 mile laterals, you would have 8 units, 32 acres out of the 10,000 would be disturbed and the revenue from royalties would be around $8,000,000 a year assuming a 12.5 royalty rate. Not to mention this land can still be leased for cattle, or be hunted, or have a hiking trails through it.

 

[jake23]

I emailed BHA and essentially was just sent a carbon copy of this....

With this response they fail to address any of my issues with the bill.

1. The bill gives renewable energy the ability to side stepping current environmental regulations and it fast tracks projects.

2. Permanent installation of facilities on public land, making them defacto private.

3. No multiple use.

4. The bill doesn't re-working the way royalties/rentals are paid for federal land. They cite the example of a 10,000 acre wind far in Ocotillo county providing, $350,000 of revenue a year.
If this was OG there would be the initial bonus bid price, say $1,000 an acre so that's $10,000,000. Then assuming a decent area drilling 2 mile laterals, you would have 8 units, 32 acres out of the 10,000 would be disturbed and the revenue from royalties would be around $8,000,000 a year assuming a 12.5 royalty rate. Not to mention this land can still be leased for cattle, or be hunted, or have a hiking trails through it.

Thanks for the synopsis of the issue, and for the detailed breakdown of the potential revenue generation for equivalent energy development. That helps put some of this into perspective.

These are the same concerns that I have about this issue. The statement from BHA sounds a lot like a politician is talking, trying to spin this into a positive light. Sounds phony and cheap to me.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks wllm1313.

I believe this is their Mission Statement:

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 and waters.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/mission_and_values

I guess I don't see how support for this figures into that.

 

[Schism]

I emailed BHA and essentially was just sent a carbon copy of this....

With this response they fail to address any of my issues with the bill.

1. The bill gives renewable energy the ability to side stepping current environmental regulations and it fast tracks projects.

2. Permanent installation of facilities on public land, making them defacto private.

3. No multiple use.

4. The bill doesn't re-working the way royalties/rentals are paid for federal land. They cite the example of a 10,000 acre wind far in Ocotillo county providing, $350,000 of revenue a year.
If this was OG there would be the initial bonus bid price, say $1,000 an acre so that's $10,000,000. Then assuming a decent area drilling 2 mile laterals, you would have 8 units, 32 acres out of the 10,000 would be disturbed and the revenue from royalties would be around $8,000,000 a year assuming a 12.5 royalty rate. Not to mention this land can still be leased for cattle, or be hunted, or have a hiking trails through it.

I agree. The response from BHA doesn’t change my disapproval of the bill. Some of my favorite places are in the grasslands of eastern MT and western ND. I don’t want wind or solar energy developed on those lands. As someone stated earlier in the thread, those areas are my Boundary Waters.

 

[BuzzH]

Another big dead elephant in the room is the life expectancy of these solar and wind farms.

To better educate myself, I spent several hours researching some of the problems. As per usual, there is NO money being set aside for either if the companies decide to just walk away from these projects. I read where the cost to remove a single wind turbine is estimated at $200,000 per turbine. Meaning that the decommissioning price tag of what we currently have would exceed 10 billion. Its my contention that this development, like any other, if its such a good "deal" and so profitable, then the companies shouldn't have any problem bonding their development.

The life expectancy on the turbines is being grossly exaggerated, and from the research I've done, their projections of 20-25 years is more like 10-12 years. Another article I read, stated that the manufacturers of the various turbines, blades, etc. will NOT warranty any parts beyond 5-10 years. We already know the problem with the blades that are going to fill up a lot of landfill space, as they have nowhere that can recycle or reuse them (either fiberglass or carbon composites.). So, that leads me to believe that the projections of 20+ years is all crap.

As a taxpayer, I'm also not all that cracked up about the massive subsidies and PTC's that they receive. The PTC's are so lucrative, that the wind turbine companies PAY the utility companies to take their power so they can continue to receive the tax credit.

I also did some research on these solar farms as well...particularly Ivanpah. Seems the "green" energy being produced there is killing in excess of 6,000 birds a year..."streamers".

I'm not in support of losing more true multi use access to my public lands, period.

The only slight argument that I find justifiable at all, is the argument that if they are going to develop BLM land for solar and wind anyway, having a few items in the bill that may "benefit" wildlife is better than nothing. That being said, there is NOTHING in the bill that addresses how much or where the 25% that goes into the conservation fund goes. In other words, the money from that fund, coming from wind development in Wyoming, could all go to funding a project in California, or Oregon, or New Mexico. I also don't see any secure funding, and pardon me for not believing that Congress will be "held accountable" when they decide not to provide the level of funding they're supposed to.

Not much to like, IMO...

 

[RockinU]

I emailed BHA and essentially was just sent a carbon copy of this....

With this response they fail to address any of my issues with the bill.

1. The bill gives renewable energy the ability to side stepping current environmental regulations and it fast tracks projects.

2. Permanent installation of facilities on public land, making them defacto private.

3. No multiple use.

4. The bill doesn't re-working the way royalties/rentals are paid for federal land. They cite the example of a 10,000 acre wind far in Ocotillo county providing, $350,000 of revenue a year.
If this was OG there would be the initial bonus bid price, say $1,000 an acre so that's $10,000,000. Then assuming a decent area drilling 2 mile laterals, you would have 8 units, 32 acres out of the 10,000 would be disturbed and the revenue from royalties would be around $8,000,000 a year assuming a 12.5 royalty rate. Not to mention this land can still be leased for cattle, or be hunted, or have a hiking trails through it.

You detailed those concerns and they sent you that form response?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You detailed those concerns and they sent you that form response?

"This is one (link below) that came from BHA HQ, so any questions you have regarding BHA's position will need to be funneled in that direction through CO & WY Chapter Coordinator, Brien Webster."

- from David Lien Colorado BHA Co-Chair

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I'll give BHA some credit, they are sticking to their guns with support of this BS bill despite a lot of disapproval from Chapter leadership and rank and file membership. The warehouse must be running low on Patagonia pullovers.

 

[Irrelevant]

I went back and forth with John Gale for several days over this. I believe he genuinely thinks this is better than the status quo. I disagree, or at least don't see it being good enough to warrant supporting. It got to the point between he and I where we couldn't even agree on what the bill actually said (meant). In the end I'm just agreeing to disagree with them on this issue.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I went back and forth with John Gale for several days over this. I believe he genuinely thinks this is better than the status quo. I disagree, or at least don't see it being good enough to warrant supporting. It got to the point between he and I where we couldn't even agree on what the bill actually said (meant).

I had the same experience with John on this bill.

 

[hossblur]

The last thing instated to John was he should take 5 min and read this post. I don't know if he did.

They made a page to discuss this. I doubt it was because only a couple folks had issue.

Land put out a facebook post about being stuck in SLC airport, and all the pics of our gorgeous public land, and how Mike Lee should leave it alone.

I posted back it looks a lot better without windmills and solar panels. I was the 2nd comment.

Point is. If they didn't know before, they are totally aware of how unlocked this position is.

They should have sit quiet. Instead they did EXACTLY what Berman and the O/G lobby said about them. That they are a left wing environmental lobbyist group pretending to be a hunting group.

I look at their board, it's a tough argument to make claiming they aren't.

I trust Fin. I trust a few others that are members in the public eye. I no longer trusted Land, or John. That's too bad. BHA may be making inroads with Patagonia, or the field to table crowd, which is good. But it is coming at the expense of lifelong hunters/anglers who aren't part of a fad.

I'm open to another "public land " group. Until then RMEF gets more of my cash

 

[RobG]

I've seen this before, guys will toss a good group over a single issue, yet continue to support the NRA cluster,,,SMH.

Yes.

There’s the additional irony of those guys being dismissive of anyone who calls a detachable magazine a clip, while at the same time posting BS they found on the internet about “windmills.”

But I’m not sure how this bill fits within BHA’s mission.

 

[vanish]

Next time I see someone call Buzz a total BHA fanboy I'll point them to this thread.

As a BHA member, I agree the BHA position is not well thought through.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Not sure if any on here knows Land personally or at least well enough to get him to respond to an email.

Aside from the questions Buzz, others, and myself have posed on this and the windmills thread I would like to know specifically why many of the congressional supporters of BHA aren't cosponsors of this bill if it's a good thing for public lands?


Ben Lujan (D-NM) and Diana Degette (D-CO) are pretty much the only public lands advocates attached to the bill. The rest of the sponsors are the transfer republicans (literally all of them) and then Midwest or CA Democrats who I would put in the "green new deal" or jobs camp, basically folks who are coming at the bill purely from the big government works perspective.

Here is Rep. Lujan, talking about an amendment to protect hunting, fishing, and recreation on a bill that has the exact same language as this bill except advocating for mining and OG development. I would expect, as an advocate for public lands that Lujan would be against any energy development, apparently not.

https://lujan.house.gov/news/videos...ent-to-protect-access-to-public-lands-7/12/12

I'm certainly going to send an email to DeGette asking about her support of the bill.