New York Times on Zinke

[Straight Arrow]

I think perspective dictates your theory ...

I agree ... just as it assumes anti-hunting and dictates the application (perhaps exaggeration) of "extreme 'no use' or very limited use" to various unnamed conservation or preservation entities. The term "extreme" is just that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So am I the odd man out being pro public lands and multiple use of these same public lands? I like coal power plants that take up one square mile, and hunting sharptails on reclaimed coal mine lands vs all these miles and miles of windmills on the eastern plains that are popping up everywhere. I like heating my home with natural gas and shooting one of my best bucks of a well pad in GMU 21. Sorry but I've been to the middle east in the Army and would much rather see oil produced at home. I'd like to see Americans logging the forest and letting some sunlight hit the ground rather bringing in wood from Canada. But to a lot of folks here all that is the wrong way of thinking, even though they use these products produced on public lands.

I'd rather not loose any public land acreage, keep it all and buy more I say!, but I also would rather not lock it all up either. And seeing so many hunters get in bed with groups and/or politicians that absolutely hate the idea of hunting because they believe in such extreme "no use" or very limited use of public lands is something I just cant comprehend

I think that far too often, the debate is framed as either for or against development when that's not really what people argue over. Yes, some preservationsits don't want any development and personally, I'm not a fan of industrial scale development of wind or solar on public lands precisely because of how we've seen industry act both in terms of politics and policy.

More often than not, what people are really arguing about is regulation and what makes sense both from the financial side and the conservation perspective. Take grouse for example: We've gotten in to a situation where we've eliminated regulations that were put in place to protect wildlife because they were deemed burdensome by industry and now we have a great extirpation of grouse from significant portions of their habitat. It's not just O&G development, but it is a combination of short-sighted decisions that place a paycheck above the continued use of the land for all users, wildlife included.

I grew up in a family who was dependent upon the O&G industry. Cousins, uncles, etc are/were miners. There is a place for all of it, but it requires regulation that is thoughtful and yes, places a burden on industry to leave a place better than they found it. That's going out the window with this administration faster and more fervently than any administration in the last 100 years.

 

[Irrelevant]

I would prefer to pay the real costs of energy extraction when done is a environmentally friendly and sustainable way. I view that more regulation and higher costs, tariffs on imports.

 

[BuzzH]

If development gets to the point that I can only shoot sharptails on reclaimed coal mines and a mule deer buck off well pads, we've failed. What a sad testament to promote multiple use/abuse...I can shoot a sharpie in a coal mine and blast a mule deer off a well pad. Great! Just having any old well pad to hunt on isn't why I'm involved in the sport.

If/when it comes to that...I'll sell my hunting stuff, take up golf, and join PETA...its over at that point anyway.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's a good example of a poorly thought out change in long-standing policy: http://www.hcn.org/articles/dc-dispatch-interior-cancels-decades-old-protections-for-migratory-birds

It's worth noting that past directors of the USFWS back to Nixon were aghast by this change.

 

[onpoint]

Given the choice between golf and shooting a muley buck off a well pad, I'll choose neither. Both choices make me wanna' puke.
The hunters in bed with the groups and/or politicians that could cause me to make that choice "is something I just can't comprehend".
I guess there's some common ground - a lack of comprehension..............