Time for Land Tawney to step down?

[hossblur]

Everybodys got to make their own decision about issues like this. I understand why Its polarizing or difficult to get behind, but after looking into it, I'm not just overwhelmed with enthusiasm but do feel ok about it. Enough to stay a member. I still think BHA is fairly unique and worth supporting. If you can't get past this action, or the current leadership its your business, move on to something else. But bear in mind that Tawney won't always be at the helm and there probably has been things BHA has done and will do in the future that you will be happy about.

Tawney not being at the helm is the entire point. Im From SFW state. Had their members stepped up and shut down Peay, it might not be the blight it is today. There are a lot of good guys that do good work in SFW.

Same as BHA.

But if we are about PRESERVING PUBLIC LAND, then smallest footprint possible should be the goal, not favorite energy source or carbon footprint.

There are plenty of climate change groups. If Land wants to lead them, he should.

But "for some scratch we will look away from certain development" is the new president.

How much to develop the boundary waters? I wasn't aware there was a price.

 

[hossblur]

Precident

 

[Big Foot]

Then. Suddenly BHA(TRCP, TU), decide to enter the climate change debate.

There is no debate. Climate change is real, the science community is not debating this fact. You can choose to not believe this but there is no debate.

 

[hossblur]

There is no debate. Climate change is real, the science community is not debating this fact. You can choose to not believe this but there is no debate.

And that has to do with preserving public land how exactly?

Your post is another proof of why BHA shouldn't touch this subject. It's not their mission. The second you post this, a coal miner jumps on to ask you how all that solar is doing in California with the power turned off, a oil guy posts pics of the massive footprint a windmill creates, and in 5 seconds a coalition of miners, hippies, gen x and baby boomers focused on smashing the land "transfer" crowd, splinter and Mike Lee and his ilk do whatever they want.

"We are for preserving and expanding public land"

That is the only answer BHA should give on climate change, Bigfoot, who killed JFK, or any other attempt to sidetrack.


There are hundreds of other orgs that didn't jump in on this one that can now NOT have to waste time and resources talking about something that doesn't "preserve or expand public land"

 

[kmott]

Those orgs have been working on Climate change for a long, long time. For the record. TRCP did a great series called Beyond Season's End in the mid 2000's, with TU, if I remember correctly.

Climate change will impact our public lands and wildlife. I think those groups need to be in the mix, personally.

the climate change FARCE ,will impact public lands and wildlife.. this whole thing is just another example of man creating a problem where none exists .

a few degree change in temps is not going to be the apocalypse as all the doomsayers claim.in fact most won't even notice any difference. life will go on , the sun will still rise and set and the world will keep on a spinning. as will the talkin heads when their catastrophys fail to come to fruition.

 

[jmveverka]

But if we are about PRESERVING PUBLIC LAND, then smallest footprint possible should be the goal, not favorite energy source or carbon footprint.

Words matter. Lets be careful with words like Conservation and Preservation. Conservation is the wise use of natural resources without waste; Preservation is saving the natural resource with no consumptive use. Think about the difference between National Parks and National Forests. We as hunters need to conserve public land - which in a practical world means we must be open to the wise use of other natural resources and development. I do believe that BHA is too heavy handed in opposition to Oil and Gas and mining and have had that conversation with Land. He and I can agree to disagree and I am still with BHA as a local board member.

My initial reaction to the renewable energy bill was similar, not because I don't think BHA should support the bill, but because I want to see more consistency of message based on impact not on the type of extraction. I have not researched it fully, but there was also some type of monetary benefit for conservation in the bill which is important to have. As a lobbyist I know that many issues get supported by organizations for many reasons. It is one thing to offer support and another to do a full court press to get a bill passed. I am ok with this one.

 

[BuzzH]

the climate change FARCE ,will impact public lands and wildlife.. this whole thing is just another example of man creating a problem where none exists .

a few degree change in temps is not going to be the apocalypse as all the doomsayers claim.in fact most won't even notice any difference. life will go on , the sun will still rise and set and the world will keep on a spinning. as will the talkin heads when their catastrophys fail to come to fruition.

I agree that climate change wont be an apocalyptic event that happens fast. But, to deny that its not impacting, and will continue to impact habitat, timing of snowmelt, changing weather patterns, ocean currents, jet streams, etc. is to deny logic, fact, and science.

Many of the changes aren't apparent because they don't happen fast, but the times, they are a changing. I see the impacts of climate change everyday with the job I do.

 

[kmott]

There is no debate. Climate change is real, the science community is not debating this fact. You can choose to not believe this but there is no debate.

lol . expecting the truth from a scientist is like expecting an honest story from CNN about the Donald... or hillery for that matter.

 

[BuzzH]

lol . expecting the truth from a scientist is like expecting an honest story from CNN about the Donald... or hillery for that matter.

Flat earther^^^

 

[kmott]

I agree that climate change wont be an apocalyptic event that happens fast. But, to deny that its not impacting, and will continue to impact habitat, timing of snowmelt, changing weather patterns, ocean currents, jet streams, etc. is to deny logic, fact, and science.

Many of the changes aren't apparent because they don't happen fast, but the times, they are a changing. I see the impacts of climate change everyday with the job I do.

the climates of the earth have been changing every since the earth was created. yes, created. some how life has muddled on. it will remain so. sure some species will go extinct ,some won't .when one goes extinct something will fill the void . it has always been so. that won't change regardless of what men think.

 

[kmott]

Flat earther^^^

name caller.

 

[BuzzH]

name caller.

More like truth teller.

Funny how people like you run down science and scientists at every turn, too much faux news and am radio...well if you believe in the science behind radio waves that is.

Are scientists being truthful when they prove antibiotics work? How about when scientists discover things like taxol, extracted from pacific yew as a cure for certain cancers? Do you tust that or is it junk science?

Splitting atoms? More fake news from the scientists you cant trust?

The list is endless on the things that science has proven, and disproven, yet you still believe the world is flat when it comes to changing climate, something that a vast majority of the best climate scientists in the world believe.

I think the flat earth moniker is pretty accurate in your case.

 

[BuzzH]

the climates of the earth have been changing every since the earth was created. yes, created. some how life has muddled on. it will remain so. sure some species will go extinct ,some won't .when one goes extinct something will fill the void . it has always been so. that won't change regardless of what men think.

How do you know? The scientists that you choose to believe about the earth going through climate changes "since earth was created" are the same people that are still studying climate change today. You only believe science and scientists that suits your political narrative...typical.

 

[kmott]

How do you know? The scientists that you choose to believe about the earth going through climate changes "since earth was created" are the same people that are still studying climate change today. You only believe science and scientists that suits your political narrative...typical.

I wouldn't believe any doomsayer prediction that came from the mouth of any scientist about anything , period.
I believe what I see and draw on proof from past experience.

I don't watch faux news , nor do i listen to a m radio. don't even believe the earth is flat . since you "claim" to love the truth, I do believe you to be pretty foolish though

 

[LuketheDog]

The list is endless on the things that science has proven, and disproven, yet you still believe the world is flat when it comes to changing climate, something that a vast majority of the best climate scientists in the world believe.

There's no debate the climate is changing but the one thing the scientists have NOT done is prove that we're doing it, and there are numerous climatologists who will tell you that as well. Human-caused climate change has become a convenient tool of the Left and the media in this county, if you want people to support a cause you can't beat them to death with it, you need to be reasonable. You make fun of "flat-earthers" while you champion the team of Chicken Littles who think the sky is falling, come on...

 

[Addicting]

I believe what I see and draw on proof from past experience.

the climates of the earth have been changing every since the earth was created. yes, created. some how life has muddled on. it will remain so. sure some species will go extinct ,some won't .when one goes extinct something will fill the void . it has always been so. that won't change regardless of what men think.

So how old are you anyway? Can you finally settle the debate on creation years verses Carbon dating years, seeing you were there and all to see it.

 

[kmott]

There's no debate the climate is changing but the one thing the scientists have NOT done is prove that we're doing it, and there are numerous climatologists who will tell you that as well. Human-caused climate change has become a convenient tool of the Left and the media in this county, if you want people to support a cause you can't beat them over the head with it, you need to be reasonable.

that's what I am saying. the climate has always been changing. so what??


folks like buzz , keep saying there is no debate .

as if repeating that lie makes it true . it does not!

 

[BuzzH]

There's no debate the climate is changing but the one thing the scientists have NOT done is prove that we're doing it, and there are numerous climatologists who will tell you that as well. Human-caused climate change has become a convenient tool of the Left and the media in this county, if you want people to support a cause you can't beat them to death with it, you need to be reasonable. You make fun of "flat-earthers" while you champion the team of Chicken Littles who think the sky is falling, come on...

You're not being truthful...show me where I ever "championed the team of Chicken Littles"...I just don't deny science and believe the world is flat.

I also agree with you that there is no debate the climate is changing, in particular when I see examples of it every day.

I also agree that the level of climate change caused by humans is debatable as well, something I've posted multiple times on this board.

But, to deny that we simply aren't causing any changes to anything via development and pumping 40 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, is, at best naïve.

Again, if you at all believe in science, there is no way that level of CO2 production can have no effect...not only common sense, but proven by science.

 

[Sytes]

I joined BHA in '14 for the primary focus, "Public Lands in Public Hands". Left due to agenda's and alliances with supportive - eager anti-Trumper / Anti-ESA, Chouinard types (wolf/griz), climate denial and support, wind/solar vs oil/gas, boots only vs "Public Hands". The diversion claim of "green decoy" aimed @ the leadership and donors, not the genuine hunters and anglers interested in the aforementioned, "Public Lands in Public Hands" members. Left BHA '18

Bah, this thread is a prime example why we need to unify the base on a principled message vs fighting Tom, Dick and Harriet's perspective of climate change etc...

 

[bpitt]

I say we all meet up at a bar, I'll buy the drinks, we can shit talk face to face. Then we all can get up the next morning, and go hunt.