Time for Land Tawney to step down?

One of the best quotes ever Fin... "I just don't think I could bare it"
Back to the subject at hand, the most basic truth of this seems to me:
More public land isn't being created because our little hunting community realizes (too late) that our land is gone. 20 years ago, a fellow could find several good spots to hunt waterfowl within 30 minutes of downtown Denver, today, not a chance! and I imagine this is true for most bigger cities in the mountain west.
Fools want to thump their chest about lib, dem, rep, then from my perspective we have no need to continue worrying about our children having places to hunt.
If you want to complain about what "conservation" groups are doing then stop being an ignorant prick by bashing them and start doing what YOU think needs to be done to CONSERVE our hunting heritage! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that unless we unite, there will be nothing left... Simply too many people in short order.
Agree, that habitat is disappearing and I agree and am certainly guilty doing a lot more side line quarter backing than actually getting out there and being the agent of change.

All of that being said, I think the point that some of us on this thread are trying to make is that development is development, and BHA should be by definition should be anti development.

Gotta draw lines in the sand somewhere...
 
I think its a good thing when someone speaks up and stays the course like Hoss> when they see an organization getting off track from the mission. I really think the feelings & comments are so strong because he was counting and expecting BHA to do what their mission statement says. Supporting Green energy on public land is totally crazy for BHA. Couple of guys on here bring climate change up every day! Maybe they should be on a weather forum. As for politics it is very obvious were their bread gets buttered and not just personal beliefs.
 
I think the point that some of us on this thread are trying to make is that development is development ...
Yes, and it's helpful to keep in mind that the primary loss of wildlife habitat is development. It seems obvious, but often gets obscured in the depths and contentiousness of debates.
 
Nuance is for people that don’t have conviction. 😁

I am and continue to be a proud supporter of BHA but I do have concerns about mission creep and the effects it has on the efficacy of protecting public lands and water.

Every organization has a finite amount of time, energy, and resources to focus on their priorities. BHA has grown into a powerful lobby for keeping our public lands accessible. I hope they (leadership) have the wisdom to restrain themselves from diverting those resources towards other efforts that are not directly related to their original mission and are fractious among their members.

The strength of BHA and any organization is political diversity in its membership. It takes humility at the top to remember that the mission is more important than individual preference for problem solving and to receive criticism without attempting to marginalize those supporters who disagree.
BHA has been growing by leaps and bounds and I have noticed a subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) stratification as celebrity status increases for some. What started around a campfire with everyone contributing is starting to lose its grassroots identity and is moving towards a venue where a few have the soapbox.

This is fine for as long as the stump continues to be “Public lands in public hand.” As the message gets diverted, so too will diversity of political affiliation and with it the strength of our lobby.
 
Nuance is for people that don’t have conviction. 😁

I am and continue to be a proud supporter of BHA but I do have concerns about mission creep and the effects it has on the efficacy of protecting public lands and water.

Every organization has a finite amount of time, energy, and resources to focus on their priorities. BHA has grown into a powerful lobby for keeping our public lands accessible. I hope they (leadership) have the wisdom to restrain themselves from diverting those resources towards other efforts that are not directly related to their original mission and are fractious among their members.

The strength of BHA and any organization is political diversity in its membership. It takes humility at the top to remember that the mission is more important than individual preference for problem solving and to receive criticism without attempting to marginalize those supporters who disagree.
BHA has been growing by leaps and bounds and I have noticed a subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) stratification as celebrity status increases for some. What started around a campfire with everyone contributing is starting to lose its grassroots identity and is moving towards a venue where a few have the soapbox.

This is fine for as long as the stump continues to be “Public lands in public hand.” As the message gets diverted, so too will diversity of political affiliation and with it the strength of our lobby.


This is worth reading more than once. Great post!
 
Nice post Gerald. Probably one reason why the POTUS only gets two terms max, to make sure what your saying...doesn't happen. New ideas, and new strategies aren't always a bad thing.
 
This thread has got alot of people thinking. Maybe politics is just one of the problems but stems from our own countries needs for MORE all the time.
Working in the Utility Industry there's always talk of keeping up with change an decline of load vs dollars for maintenance. Technologies soon may bring energy from all around us like roads or building materials, etc. So long as to big to fail industries don't squash these new ideas. Hopefully not. Just think, there are lots of right away acreage across this country that could revert back to habitat, but instead of being a substation guy i'll maintain your developments battery barn or gas turbine. Tech always seems to get smaller, but more powerfull. Just sucks it may be in your backyards.
I really believe in a world where we have our land and comfy housing/booming industry both. The industry I work in to waste is sometimes cheaper than being responsible to restock unused materials. It drives me crazy to think our landfills have brand new stuff in them. An I'm sure other bottom line ran industries end up in the same cycle. Being better stewards as a country would be a huge help in not needing to make more stupid money from our amazing BLM back country. This country needs more bean counters that love to hunt like Randy, and push for regs and entice all companies to work towards the highest standards from top to bottom.
 
I agree with a good bit off what Hoss said.
There isn’t much difference to the hunter between a section of BLM being leased for solar and it being transferred to the states and sold. Either way, you aren’t using it. Atleast if Ken Ivory get it, they might just turn it into a pay to play hunting preserve and the mule deer can persist.
But not here

View attachment 119959
I’m not against solar on public land, in fact it is becoming more and more my job to put it there, but I support BHA because of things like their work in the crazies, not because I want them to push their favorite kind of energy on public land.

Mule deer didn't live there before the CSP plant. Now if we're talking desert tortoise, maybe you have a point.
 
What is Land's net worth and how much does he make from BHA? I thing Land is misguided but it trying to do the right thing.
Money talks, and I am curious.
 
What is Land's net worth and how much does he make from BHA? I thing Land is misguided but it trying to do the right thing.
Money talks, and I am curious.
I doubt his net worth is public knowledge, nor is it any of our business. His salary is public record and is very reasonable. Generally most folks don’t dedicate their career to conservation to get rich. I’ve spent some time with Land and I can tell you he is very passionate about the work he does. He’s also a great guy. It’s pretty easy to get all spun up about something and get the wrong impression of someone by reading a public forum.
 
What is Land's net worth and how much does he make from BHA? I thing Land is misguided but it trying to do the right thing.
Money talks, and I am curious.
No idea abut his Net Worth. In 2017 he received $145,945 in total compensation from BHA. Does not seem out of line to me for the CEO of an org the size of BHA.

Fun fact, in 2017 4 individuals contributed a total of $2.32M. That is roughly half of total revenue for the year. Membership dues only totaled $693,000 that year. Membership dues do not cover pay and benefits for the staff which totaled $823,843. Those 4 individuals become very important given the math involved. In my experience in business those 4 "investors" would have a huge level of influence.
 
Mule deer didn't live there before the CSP plant. Now if we're talking desert tortoise, maybe you have a point.
Are you saying that there was no deer at this particular site (Solana) or that deer in general, do not exist at sites that are selected for industrial solar?
(both would be incorrect) but I’m curious what you meant.
 
No idea abut his Net Worth. In 2017 he received $145,945 in total compensation from BHA. Does not seem out of line to me for the CEO of an org the size of BHA.

Fun fact, in 2017 4 individuals contributed a total of $2.32M. That is roughly half of total revenue for the year. Membership dues only totaled $693,000 that year. Membership dues do not cover pay and benefits for the staff which totaled $823,843. Those 4 individuals become very important given the math involved. In my experience in business those 4 "investors" would have a huge level of influence.


Who are those 4?

No one ever said he wasn't a good guy, or passionate.
 
Who are those 4?

No one ever said he wasn't a good guy, or passionate.
No idea. The names are redacted on their tax filing. I am not questioning Mr. Tawneys character, passion or likability. I am not even going to question whether he should step down as CEO. I'll leave that decision up to his BOD. Given the growth of BHA membership along with his ability to raise significant funds then I suspect he isn't going any where any time soon. After all, growth and fund raising are top priorities of a CEO. I will question what he is doing with all that money and is it a use I can support.

When 42% of expenses are advertising, 30% are staff compensation and benefits and 19% is used to increase cash assets the remaining 9% becomes really important.
 
Are you saying that there was no deer at this particular site (Solana) or that deer in general, do not exist at sites that are selected for industrial solar?
(both would be incorrect) but I’m curious what you meant.

You'll have to forgive my unfortunate assumption that the picture you displayed was a public land CSP installation such as Ivahpah or Crescent Dunes. Neither of those locations are quality habitat for mule deer. With respect to solana, it's a private land development that derives much of its potential to be habitat from the other connected, private, irrigated farm land. It's a bit of a non-sequitur if we're talking about renewable energy development on public lands, unless it was a part of some recent land transfer. I don't know whether that is the case. I'm not making the other broad statement about industrial solar projects, however I think industrial solar projects can be put on public land in places, especially in the southwest, where their impact on horned/antlered animals will be minimal. That is not to say that there won't be some impact to other species though, especially reptiles.
 
You'll have to forgive my unfortunate assumption that the picture you displayed was a public land CSP installation such as Ivahpah or Crescent Dunes. Neither of those locations are quality habitat for mule deer. With respect to solana, it's a private land development that derives much of its potential to be habitat from the other connected, private, irrigated farm land. It's a bit of a non-sequitur if we're talking about renewable energy development on public lands, unless it was a part of some recent land transfer. I don't know whether that is the case. I'm not making the other broad statement about industrial solar projects, however I think industrial solar projects can be put on public land in places, especially in the southwest, where their impact on horned/antlered animals will be minimal. That is not to say that there won't be some impact to other species though, especially reptiles.
The point of the picture was to show what industrial solar looks like and that once something becomes a solar farm it is only a solar farm.
It’s not a migration corridor, a hunting spot or anything else. It’s a solar farm and only a solar farm. With a fence around it usually.
 
Thirteen pages on this thread and however many were on the last one, and nobody has come up with an alternative to making sure renewable energy developers and public land managers consider wildlife on the front end of said development, other than DEVELOPMENT IS BAD, CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX SO BHA AND OTHERS SHOULDN'T WORK ON IT, AND LAND TAWNEY HURT MY FEELERS.

Boy I tell ya, it's almost like some of y'all had axes to grind and never really cared about the PLREDA in the first place...
 
PEAX Trekking Poles

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,009
Messages
2,041,033
Members
36,429
Latest member
Dusky
Back
Top