Goodbye to BHA

[jake23]

I don't think anyone here has said absolutely no development of any kind on public lands. Judging by the shape of the landscape in the West, that surely hasn't been what we've done. Pull up google-earth and tell me we're stopping development on public lands. Clear cuts, roads, grazing, mining all being done on public lands and I don't think anyone is obtuse enough to think that's going to stop.

The problem with "multi-use development" from my view, is in the who gets decide what user groups lose and which don't. Many times there just aren't "compromises" to be had that work out for everyone. Some group has to give up something for another to get something. I just wonder where my "right" as a public lands user ends and where your conflicting "right" start?

The even bigger problem, IMO, is when Congress decides to stream-line the process and show favoritism to one user group over another legislatively. You rig the game so that even when, and its a fact of when, not if...the development occurs in areas other users find value in, have very little recourse to oppose, object, or file a lawsuit. Gutting the process to favor one user group over another is not in the spirit of what FLPMA, NEPA, RPA, etc. etc. were set in place to do. Those acts, regulations, and policies were put in place to give the average guy a voice in how we use our public lands and also a way to put a stop to it when we feel those same acts, regulations and policies are being violated.

Just for the record, I have marked my share of public land timber sales, conducted thinning, written management plans, and made recommendations for all kinds of extractive uses on both private and public lands.

But, as a citizen and public land user, I want to reserve the right to file an objection or lawsuit if I feel my wildlife, my right as a public land user, or wildlife habitat is taking it in the shorts.

Well said Buzz! You are definitely better with words than I am!

 

[hossblur]

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

Haven't been in NRA for a decade. But it is interesting you bring up that blind support of NRA.

I hear that same "good work" argument in my state for a REASON to support SFW.

Don Peay has pulled millions using that line

 

[Irrelevant]

I'd be curious. I spent a week deep diving into this.

How many of you think supporting this bill wasn't about development, it was a nod to the climate change crowd?

That's what finally pushed me. No matter what I read, I couldn't find anything to convince me otherwise.

In several follow up emails between John Gale and I, it seems like in his opinion this is actually a step in the right direction for development of green energy on public lands, which prior to this, did not have nearly the amount of permitting (if any) that traditional energy projects faced on public land. He was a energy section lawyer under G W. He and I still disagree on what this particular legislation says and means, but it also didn't appear there was any "climate change" backing to it. Simply trying to get a better system than what is currently in place or what was going to be put in place by others without our input. I still would have preferred them to stay silent if anything, but as others have said, I'm not dropping my support over one piece of legislation.

 

[mottlet]

As of now I'm only a member of RMEF.

Cool. I'm a member of RMEF too. Happen to recall when the last action alert they sent went out? Me neither. Fact of the matter is, if you join a group so that they'll fight on the Hill, it's only a matter of time before they do something you don't agree with. Hard to get mad at somebody that just asks you to get drunk at a banquet to support habitat. But noses get bloodied inside the Beltway and any group that'll take those punches for sportsmen is probably worth a benefit of the doubt or two. It's also worth pointing out that sportsmen, with multiple and obvious exceptions, are a notoriously lazy constituency that typically have to be shaken awake and drug into a brawl on habitat policy or public lands management. And that's one reason that streamlined renewable energy development on public land is a matter of when (or more), not if.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't think anyone here has said absolutely no development of any kind on public lands. Judging by the shape of the landscape in the West, that surely hasn't been what we've done. Pull up google-earth and tell me we're stopping development on public lands. Clear cuts, roads, grazing, mining all being done on public lands and I don't think anyone is obtuse enough to think that's going to stop.

The problem with "multi-use development" from my view, is in the who gets decide what user groups lose and which don't. Many times there just aren't "compromises" to be had that work out for everyone. Some group has to give up something for another to get something. I just wonder where my "right" as a public lands user ends and where your conflicting "right" start?

The even bigger problem, IMO, is when Congress decides to stream-line the process and show favoritism to one user group over another legislatively. You rig the game so that even when, and its a fact of when, not if...the development occurs in areas other users find value in, have very little recourse to oppose, object, or file a lawsuit. Gutting the process to favor one user group over another is not in the spirit of what FLPMA, NEPA, RPA, etc. etc. were set in place to do. Those acts, regulations, and policies were put in place to give the average guy a voice in how we use our public lands and also a way to put a stop to it when we feel those same acts, regulations and policies are being violated.

Just for the record, I have marked my share of public land timber sales, conducted thinning, written management plans, and made recommendations for all kinds of extractive uses on both private and public lands.

But, as a citizen and public land user, I want to reserve the right to file an objection or lawsuit if I feel my wildlife, my right as a public land user, or wildlife habitat is taking it in the shorts.

I think one of the main sticking points in my mind is the permanence of renewable development. Trees grow back, roads eventually are reclaimed, we factor in a 30 year well life and then plugging costs to all our economic models... open pit mines and wind turbines will be there forever.

The comparison to a OG well pad site and a wind turbine/solar project is incorrect, wind turbines aren't time limited extraction.

The correct comparisons would be to a fossil burning power plant. Do we want power plants being built on public lands, imagine if this bill was advocating that we allow a utility to rent our public lands, fence them, and build power plants all over them.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

And that's one reason that streamlined renewable energy development on public land is a matter of when (or more), not if.

I disagree, it's not a given nor should it be... in my mind permanent power plants on public lands is essentially corporate private land transfer. Bishop just proved he is way smarter than BHA, and has figured out how to use their biases against them.

 

[Nameless Range]

I think one of the main sticking points in my mind is the permanence of renewable development. Trees grow back, roads eventually are reclaimed, we factor in a 30 year well life and then plugging costs to all our economic models... open pit mines and wind turbines will be there forever.

I feel this is a meaningful distinction.

My kids and I fish in the mine tailings of yesteryear, I hunt elk in the second growth of last century's clearcuts, and even the removal of mountaintops, as terrible as the death of a mountain is, can be replanted and repopulated by flora and fuana to a degree.

I'm definitely not defending or endorsing any of those other extractive activities on our public lands, but these are structures, and I suppose if they were removed the land may look no different, but while they're there it seems like an absolute loss of the chunks of land they will occupy.

 

[jake23]

I think one of the main sticking points in my mind is the permanence of renewable development. Trees grow back, roads eventually are reclaimed, we factor in a 30 year well life and then plugging costs to all our economic models... open pit mines and wind turbines will be there forever.

The comparison to a OG well pad site and a wind turbine/solar project is incorrect, wind turbines aren't time limited extraction.

The correct comparisons would be to a fossil burning power plant. Do we want power plants being built on public lands, imagine if this bill was advocating that we allow a utility to rent our public lands, fence them, and build power plants all over them.

Awesome post! You nailed it! No we do not want companies building power plants on our public land.

 

[JM77]

Having sat on various boards, I've come to know the importance of mission statements. They identify the organization and allow the leaders to remain focused in good and bad times.

When a tough decision needs to be made, look to the mission; the answer is there and always will be. This is where BHA failed miserably, and in the same token has tied the hands of local chapters, like Wyoming, who will be effected the most.

 

[TheJason]

I've come to know the importance of mission statements. They identify the organization and allow the leaders to remain focused in good and bad times

Absolutely key.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The whole conversation reminds me of Mark Reisner's Cadillac Desert, large scale "renewable" projects, built at the expense of the public because private individuals realized their wasn't enough money to be made building them privately. Knowing what we know now would you want the Glen Canyon dam to be built, dams are the only large scale public works project on public lands I can think of... with the distinction being it's owned by the bureau of reclamation not a private entity.

........


“Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.”
― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire

 

[Oak]

I propose that we remove domestic sheep from my public lands that are killing my bighorn sheep, plant wind turbines on the permittees' private lands and pay them instead. Win-win.

 

[rwc101]

Having been a part of way too many strategic planning committees, I've seen broad mission statements used to justify what people already want to do more often than to guide decision making.

 

[BuzzH]

The whole conversation reminds me of Mark Reisner's Cadillac Desert, large scale "renewable" projects, built at the expense of the public because private individuals realized their wasn't enough money to be made building them privately. Knowing what we know now would you want the Glen Canyon damn to be built, it's the only large scale public works project on public lands I can think of... with the distinction being it's owned by the bureau of reclamation not a private entity.

........


“Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.”
― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire

Cadillac Desert should be required reading for everyone.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I propose that we remove domestic sheep from my public lands that are killing my bighorn sheep, plant wind turbines on the permittees' private lands and pay them instead. Win-win.

Now that is a proposal.

 

[Irrelevant]

it's the only large scale public works project on public lands I can think of... with the distinction being it's owned by the bureau of reclamation not a private entity.

Seriously? Most large dams are owned by BOR or Army Corp. Here in PNW there's quite a few also owned by power companies, but most of them are still publicly owned PUDs.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Seriously? Most large dams are owned by BOR or Army Corp. Here in PNW there's quite a few also owned by power companies, but most of them are still publicly owned PUDs.

Sorry "dams are the"... fixed it

 

[88man]

I was a member and smelled something I didn't like so I didn't rejoin. RMEF puts the $$$$ to the dirt

 

[RockinU]

But, as a citizen and public land user, I want to reserve the right to file an objection or lawsuit if I feel my wildlife, my right as a public land user, or wildlife habitat is taking it in the shorts.

This is what we need to be fighting for, what we need to be seeking to expand. This is what BHA is supposed to represent. Compromise on peripheral issues, but fight battles on core issues, even if they are losing battles.

 

[hossblur]

Cool. I'm a member of RMEF too. Happen to recall when the last action alert they sent went out? Me neither. Fact of the matter is, if you join a group so that they'll fight on the Hill, it's only a matter of time before they do something you don't agree with. Hard to get mad at somebody that just asks you to get drunk at a banquet to support habitat. But noses get bloodied inside the Beltway and any group that'll take those punches for sportsmen is probably worth a benefit of the doubt or two. It's also worth pointing out that sportsmen, with multiple and obvious exceptions, are a notoriously lazy constituency that typically have to be shaken awake and drug into a brawl on habitat policy or public lands management. And that's one reason that streamlined renewable energy development on public land is a matter of when (or more), not if.

Wear a Patagonia shirt into any non urban bar, then let me know about "taking it".

Like I said. We got enough fights. We can let the "cow fart" crowd argue with the trump crowd. It has ZERO to do with protecting public land.

If I'm wrong, show me the TAKE ACTION supporting a bill to streamline OG development. Or mining. Or logging.

If you take a position so unpopular with your members you have to build a website to explain, that's a problem.

Mule Creek put it best. Have the balls to come out and say this is a climate change nod, at least you'd get respect. Instead they issued press releases from 2 other groups.

I've gotten several messages from folks with more knowledge than I. I'm 100% right.

BHA is a LAND PROTECTION GROUP.

Supposedly.