Time for Land Tawney to step down?

[Deleted member 28227]

@kmott I realize that I will never change your mind on this issues. You are entitled to your opinion. I do believe that the way you approach this topic hampers your ability to effectively advocate for public lands because it leads the person on the otherside of the table to label you as a "crazy".

I will even give you that there have been those throughout history that have question the status quo and been right.

Nevertheless these individuals were not able to make any headway with their peers which is our goal.

Therefore,

I do ask a favor of you and others, and it's the reason I keep getting in the mud on these topics.

Please when interacting with those like Land Tawney, with regard to the topic of renewable energy on public land, use the arguments that I have outlined.

This topic is important, I genuinely think that our most effective means of advocating for our public lands is to ask that these groups and others scrutinize the negative effects of energy development on habitat. Your line should be "Land, we are hear because we want to see our public lands maintained for those in the womb of time, and to that end I think advocating for type of development runs contrary to our/your mission statement. Building solar panels or wind turbines, will disrupt mule deer migration corridors or sage grouse leks as much as oil and gas wells. Should we not consider everything that impacts our wildlife."

I'm sure someone like Ben Lamb could state this far more eloquently.

 

[kmott]

@kmott I realize that I will never change your mind on this issues. You are entitled to your opinion. I do believe that the way you approach this topic hampers your ability to effectively advocate for public lands because it leads the person on the otherside of the table to label you as a "crazy".

I will even give you that there have been those throughout history that have question the status quo and been right.

Nevertheless these individuals were not able to make any headway with their peers which is our goal.

Therefore,

I do ask a favor of you and others, and it's the reason I keep getting in the mud on these topics.

Please when interacting with those like Land Tawney, with regard to the topic of renewable energy on public land, use the arguments that I have outlined.

This topic is important, I genuinely think that our most effective means of advocating for our public lands is to ask that these groups and others scrutinize the negative effects of energy development on habitat. Your line should be "Land, we are hear because we want to see our public lands maintained for those in the womb of time, and to that end I think advocating for type of development runs contrary to our/your mission statement. Building solar panels or wind turbines, will disrupt mule deer migration corridors or sage grouse leks as much as oil and gas wells. Should we not consider everything that impacts our wildlife."

I'm sure someone like Ben Lamb could state this far more eloquently.

so what if those on the other side of the table label me as crazy ??? they are bat s@#t crazy. I don't pander or compromise to fools .if the world burns as a result, so be it.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

I don't know much about politics or climate change, but I wish they would turn those damn fans off in SE Wyoming. Its too windy!

 

[Deleted member 16014]

so what if those on the other side of the table label me as crazy ??? they are bat s@#t crazy. I don't pander or compromise to fools .if the world burns as a result, so be it.

Simple, because if people think someone is crazy they won't listen to them, regardless of their argument.

 

[kmott]

Simple, because if people think someone is crazy they won't listen to them, regardless of their argument.

it doesn't really mater what anyones argument is . those who disagree , ALWAYS , either truly think the other is crazy or try to make them out to be.
and you simply can't persuade or compromise with crazy. I don't really try to persuade , it's a lost cause . it's enough for me to point out the crazies.

anyone who believes scientific doomsayers , is curaaazzeeee!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kmott]

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.

people like me? oh no you didn!

 

[bobbydean]

I am member. Will not re up. Disagree with the direction of the organization. I thought they had great views and were corrupted.

 

[MJE2083]

Never trust a guy with a flat brim

 

[Flatrock]

climate change will have little to no effect on animals.

Oof. Your head is buried pretty deep on that one.

 

[hossblur]

I'm assuming something like this...

Teddy Roosevelt: Conservationist, Wise Use, National Forests
John Muir: Preservationist, No use, National Parks

Essentially he was saying Hossbur had an antiquated perspective on public lands due to his hands off approach.

I'm assuming something like this...

Teddy Roosevelt: Conservationist, Wise Use, National Forests
John Muir: Preservationist, No use, National Parks

Essentially he was saying Hossbur had an antiquated perspective on public lands due to his hands off approach.

I thought Land using Muir as some sort of insult was odd.

I'm a ton more

Oof. Your head is buried pretty deep on that one.

Development will have far more.

 

[hossblur]

I thought Land using Muir as some sort of insult was odd.

I'm a ton more

Oh no. Not hands off at all.

But only government negotiates that bad.

An acre of oil producing ground is easy worth an acre somewhere else.

I'm 100% not a loss of a single acre.

Tabby mtn in my state was for sale.

$40mill price.

I'll trade that for $40 mill of wind farm, or oil land, etc.

I won't trade it for the interior secretary deciding what it's worth.

BHA told us how bad the secretaries were under Trump, then turns around and trusts them with money from land development?

Can't help but wonder how many solar farms and wind farms are in Missoula.

Betting not many.

As long as it's Wyoming or Arizona, I guess it's ok?

Development will have far more.

 

[daltrix99]

Coincidentally, this week's episode of Hunt Talk radio, #119, features none other than Theodore Roosevelt IV. He and Randy discuss several of the issues in this thread at length, such as climate change and public lands, and as they relate to hunting. Some folks in this thread would do well to give it a careful listen.

 

[shoots-straight]

I locked myself out of this thread.

 

[kmott]

I hate it when I do that!

 

[BigHornRam]

There was talk about putting a subsidized solar farm in East Missoula a few years ago.

Flats east of Missoula eyed for solar energy farm

By this time next year, Missoula County could have its first utility-scale solar plant, one of the first in Montana.

missoulian.com

I think the dummies finally figured out that particular site gets no sun for at least 3 months of the year.

I get several solicitations in the mail each year by some outfit that wants to lease my tree farm to put solar panels on it. Must have something to do with the major transmission line less than a mile away. Payment of up to $1000 a year per acre they say. Just for fun, I think I'll contact them next time to see what their game is.

 

[BWALKER77]

I think that renewables need a critical look and I don't believe they have been given that by a lot of folks.

The things that I don't like in regard to wind farms and solar on public lands are:

1. The PTC's that are so lucrative that wind energy companies PAY utility companies to take their power.
2. Wind and Solar farms are just as, if not more disruptive to migration corridors as oil and gas.
3. The footprint on both is massive, and its not just in relation to the farms themselves, its also the transmission lines, associated roads, etc.
4. No plan for what happens long term if the farms are decommissioned.
5. They both kill a lot birds.
6. Unlike oil and gas, any public lands that are within the boundaries of the wind or solar areas are 100% off limits to hunting and other multiple use activities. Sure, a rancher may be able to graze cows there, but what about ANY sort of recreation? Its all gone. Even though it may not be the best quality, I can still hunt right in the middle of oil and gas development for the most part.

There just isn't much to like with renewable energy on public lands, its a taking of multiple use, and essentially converting public lands to a single use/private ownership deal. Not what I consider the most judicious use of our public lands for the benefit of future generations for the longest time...with equal consideration being given to all uses. Its picking one "winner" and creating a shit ton of losers...wildlife, habitat, migration corridors, recreation, etc.

As far as the angle that there will at least be some money put into a pot to be split by the states producing the power and giving up public lands? Not worth it. The language of the bill is crap, it gives discretion to politicians to decide how to dole out the money. Its just awesome that I give up migration corridors, areas to hunt, fish, bike, hike, bird watch, so that the revenue generated can go to another state to "help" their wildlife. Sorry CA, OR, ID, but if I give up recreation on my public lands in Wyoming to wind and solar, the revenue generated here, should stay here. The bill in question doesn't specify how the money will be divided.

Too many downsides and not enough upside for me to support this legislation at this time.

Great post and a share the same concerns.
As it pertains to Tawney. I believe he is a left wing ideologue and honestly this gives me great pause in sending money to a NP headed by such a person.

 

[BWALKER77]

I'm assuming something like this...

Teddy Roosevelt: Conservationist, Wise Use, National Forests
John Muir: Preservationist, No use, National Parks

Essentially he was saying Hossbur had an antiquated perspective on public lands due to his hands off approach.

Tawneys stance on renewable siteing is no different than those that support O and G development on public land other than the fact it's not en vogue in leftists circles to support such. The end result is the same or even worse in the case of renewables for the reasons Buzz mentioned.

 

[BWALKER77]

And zero carbon if I understand the process. And, we would be energy self-sufficient for generations and stop sending our borrowed dollars to regimes that do not like our way of life and culture.

Requires lots of public land mining so thats out..

 

[LopeHunter]

Requires lots of public land mining so thats out..

Old warheads can be used. That is the source for about 20% of current nuke plant fuel.

 

[BWALKER77]

Old warheads can be used. That is the source for about 20% of current nuke plant fuel.

That source only accounts for 10% of the total requirement IIRC and is very expensive as the fissile material has to be converted to oxides. That source is also shrinking.
No way around the fact that an increase in Nuclear power would require much more mining. For the record I think it's a great idea. Especially given the decrease in base load capacity from the decommissioning of the coal fleet.