Time for Land Tawney to step down?

[Deleted member 28227]

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...

Lots of posts, so I will try and summarize and least how I believe many on the thread feel.

Development on public lands, when done specifically to benefit an individual or individual company over the majority of owners (the public) is problematic.

Climate change is real, it's a crisis, but it's a chronic problem. Habitat destruction is an acute problem. One will take global societal change the other can be changed with a pen stroke.

We are fine with renewable energy on public land, so long as it is rigorously evaluated for habitat impact, and so far as the public is fairly compensated for essentially perpetual occupation of our lands. Due to the permanent nature of renewable generation versus temporary extraction of hydrocarbons, renewable leases should have different terms that take into account there permanent nature and exclusive use of land.

Development on private land is preferable.

The bill should not include language the essentially forces projects to be built even if suitable locations cannot be found.

It's concerning the all of the land transfer folks are pushing this bill but hardly any of the public lands advocates.

Land Tawney is the CEO of a Public Land Advocacy group and he should put public lands above other agenda items. BHA is not a climate change group, while important, there is no mention of green energy or climate change in their mission statement.

The group has received bipartisan support from hunters and anglers because of it's narrow focus, green energy development is a divisive departure.

 

[Schism]

Lots of posts, so I will try and summarize and least how I believe many on the thread feel.

Development on public lands, when done specifically to benefit an individual or individual company over the majority of owners (the public) is problematic.

Climate change is real, it's a crisis, but it's a chronic problem. Habitat destruction is an acute problem. One will take global societal change the other can be changed with a pen stroke.

We are fine with renewable energy on public land, so long as it is rigorously evaluated for habitat impact, and so far as the public is fairly compensated for essentially perpetual occupation of our lands. Due to the permanent nature of renewable generation versus temporary extraction of hydrocarbons, renewable lease should have different terms that take into account there permanent nature.

Development on private land is preferable.

The bill should not include language the essentially forces projects to be build even in suitable locations cannot be found.

It's concerning the all of the land transfer folks are pushing this bill but put public lands advocates.

Land Tawney as the CEO of a Public Land Advocacy group and he should put public lands above other agenda items. BHA is not a climate change group, while important, there is no mention of green energy or climate change in their mission statement.

The group has received bipartisan support from hunters and anglers because of it's narrow focus, green energy development is a divisive departure.

Pretty good summary!

 

[mottlet]

Lots of posts, so I will try and summarize and least how I believe many on the thread feel.

Development on public lands, when done specifically to benefit an individual or individual company over the majority of owners (the public) is problematic.

Climate change is real, it's a crisis, but it's a chronic problem. Habitat destruction is an acute problem. One will take global societal change the other can be changed with a pen stroke.

We are fine with renewable energy on public land, so long as it is rigorously evaluated for habitat impact, and so far as the public is fairly compensated for essentially perpetual occupation of our lands. Due to the permanent nature of renewable generation versus temporary extraction of hydrocarbons, renewable leases should have different terms that take into account there permanent nature and exclusive use of land.

Development on private land is preferable.

The bill should not include language the essentially forces projects to be built even if suitable locations cannot be found.

It's concerning the all of the land transfer folks are pushing this bill but hardly any of the public lands advocates.

Land Tawney is the CEO of a Public Land Advocacy group and he should put public lands above other agenda items. BHA is not a climate change group, while important, there is no mention of green energy or climate change in their mission statement.

The group has received bipartisan support from hunters and anglers because of it's narrow focus, green energy development is a divisive departure.

Guess I got a bit snarky in my first post. My bad. Shoulda said this instead.

Climate change is already dramatically changing our public lands and will only continue to do so in the future. Development of renewable energy on public lands is only one example. Did anybody get all fired up about BHA and TRCP getting behind a fire borrowing fix last year? No? Likely because we recognize that when the Forest Service is using over half of its budget to fight wildfires, that's not good for the management of our public lands, even if it wasn't strictly about "keeping public lands in public hands." How about the sage grouse plans? Was that about stopping transfer? Randy has talked about this over and over and over. Public land transfer is not the alpha and the omega of defending our public lands. Climate change will have incredible impacts on our public lands and our ability as hunters and anglers to enjoy them. Not working on management in the face of climate change as a public lands advocate because the issue might be "divisive" is a cop-out, pure and simple.

Are there degrees? Absolutely. Could PLREDA be better? Almost definitely. This thread (and the last one) started with the premise that sportsmen's advocacy groups, particularly BHA, should not be working on this issue because climate change doesn't fit into the mission of public lands advocates. And that attitude is dangerous. Because there are some folks, with a fair amount of sway in Washington, that think renewable energy belongs on public lands because it will make them money. And there are others, also not without clout, that are steadfast in their zeal to achieve zero GHG emissions and could give a tinker's damn about how that might affect where you and I hunt and fish.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Guess I got a bit snarky in my first post. My bad. Shoulda said this instead.

Climate change is already dramatically changing our public lands and will only continue to do so in the future. Development of renewable energy on public lands is only one example. Did anybody get all fired up about BHA and TRCP getting behind a fire borrowing fix last year? No? Likely because we recognize that when the Forest Service is using over half of its budget to fight wildfires, that's not good for the management of our public lands, even if it wasn't strictly about "keeping public lands in public hands." How about the sage grouse plans? Was that about stopping transfer? Randy has talked about this over and over and over. Public land transfer is not the alpha and the omega of defending our public lands. Climate change will have incredible impacts on our public lands and our ability as hunters and anglers to enjoy them. Not working on management in the face of climate change as a public lands advocate because the issue might be "divisive" is a cop-out, pure and simple.

Are there degrees? Absolutely. Could PLREDA be better? Almost definitely. This thread (and the last one) started with the premise that sportsmen's advocacy groups, particularly BHA, should not be working on this issue because climate change doesn't fit into the mission of public lands advocates. And that attitude is dangerous. Because there are some folks, with a fair amount of sway in Washington, that think renewable energy belongs on public lands because it will make them money. And there are others, also not without clout, that are steadfast in their zeal to achieve zero GHG emissions and could give a tinker's damn about how that might affect where you and I hunt and fish.

@hossblur

"These temple-destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar." - John Muir

It's about money, it has nothing to do with climate change, wall street is adept at adapting the parlance of the times to market products. We are worried that this is just another ploy to wrench public lands out of the public hands put them in those of multinational corporations.

Sage grouse and fire funding are well within the organizations wheel house, protecting species and wild lands.

Read the mission statement.




Hardly seems like this is what Leopold was thinking of when he advocated for wilderness.

 

[Irrelevant]

@hossblur

"These temple-destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar." - John Muir

It's about money, it has nothing to do with climate change, wall street is adept at adapting the parlance of the times to market products. We are worried that this is just another ploy to wrench public lands out of the public hands put them in those of multinational corporations.

Sage grouse and fire funding are well within the organizations wheel house, protecting species and wild lands.

Read the mission statement.

View attachment 120564


Hardly seems like this is what Leopold was thinking of when he advocated for wilderness.
View attachment 120565

Is it possible that your example pic was a product of not having the level of protections that PLREDA includes and thereby is an example of exactly why green energy needs to consider wildlife and habitat?

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Is it possible that your example pic was a product of not having the level of protections that PLREDA includes and thereby is an example of exactly why green energy needs to consider wildlife and habitat?

Wildlife and habitat are already a consideration on all public land use projects. Whether those projects produce green electrons or black electrons. It is a false narrative to think that prior to this Bill it was thunderdome on BLM land in regards to building renewable energy projects and that this Bill will finally get it under control.

 

[bushman13]

Not BHA related, more a comment to this thread.

Ever get the feeling that both sides are wrong? I feel like a classic magician's misdirection is at play.
How can one concentrate on temp changes and CO2, when driving into a sea of hydrocarbons and bathing in fluorine? Which has a more immediate and measurable health effect?
How can one argue against Solar or Wind, when the person lives in this toxic stew? If I were King, I would donate an entire State to Solar. Sorry Arizona, should have 86'd McCain long before the inevitable... . I digress.


Just a fun fact. The new "green" type restaurant take out paper products , are covered in highly volatile Fluorine. Toxicity starts at 25ppm and instant death occurs at 1000ppm. And it's been added to the water supply and toothpastes for our entire lifetimes. We have big issues are that identifiable and we squabble over temp fluctuation.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Is it possible that your example pic was a product of not having the level of protections that PLREDA includes and thereby is an example of exactly why green energy needs to consider wildlife and habitat?

A big solar project is kinda a big solar project... sure you can put it in the mojave and not a sheep corridor... but they basically look like that. Also the grid being an issue they will be located near towns on public lands... meaning that place you hunt mule deer and elk outside of bozeman or greatfalls, or eagle, etc etc.

Again not against green energy, would love to see a bill that mandates all commercial real-estate has to have them, it would be the best way to get around the duck curve.

I'm also not against public lands being used for energy development... some places are better than others.

I don't think a Wild places advocacy group should be supporting the bill.

Say because of this bill a solar field is slatted to be built in a crappy spot, does BHA go after it? They told us to support the bill? Would they feel weird attacking a project they were essentially complicit in getting approved?

I'm not saying BHA needs to be against the bill, but silent, and then should fight tooth and nail any project that impacts wild lands, habitat, fish, birds, mammals, etc.

 

[bushman13]

Again not against green energy, would love to see a bill that mandates all commercial real-estate has to have them, it would be the best way to get around the duck curve. So true, unfortunately in the sunny state I am most familiar with, it was the legacy Energy monopoly who neutered any efforts and eventually gobbled up the entire movement.

 

[88man]

Lots of posts, so I will try and summarize and least how I believe many on the thread feel.

Development on public lands, when done specifically to benefit an individual or individual company over the majority of owners (the public) is problematic.

Climate change is real, it's a crisis, but it's a chronic problem. Habitat destruction is an acute problem. One will take global societal change the other can be changed with a pen stroke.

We are fine with renewable energy on public land, so long as it is rigorously evaluated for habitat impact, and so far as the public is fairly compensated for essentially perpetual occupation of our lands. Due to the permanent nature of renewable generation versus temporary extraction of hydrocarbons, renewable leases should have different terms that take into account there permanent nature and exclusive use of land.

Development on private land is preferable.

The bill should not include language the essentially forces projects to be built even if suitable locations cannot be found.

It's concerning the all of the land transfer folks are pushing this bill but hardly any of the public lands advocates.

Land Tawney is the CEO of a Public Land Advocacy group and he should put public lands above other agenda items. BHA is not a climate change group, while important, there is no mention of green energy or climate change in their mission statement.

The group has received bipartisan support from hunters and anglers because of it's narrow focus, green energy development is a divisive departure.

We are fine with renewable energy on public land, so long as it is rigorously evaluated for habitat impact, and so far as the public is fairly compensated for essentially perpetual occupation of our lands. Due to the permanent nature of renewable generation versus temporary extraction of hydrocarbons, renewable leases should have different terms that take into account there permanent nature and exclusive use of land.

Who is we??????????????????????????????

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Who is we??????????????????????????????

Anyone who agrees with that statement.

 

[88man]

I think very very few guys on here are gonna agree with supporting green energy on public lands!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think very very few guys on here are gonna agree with supporting green energy on public lands!

Nope everyone is in 100% agreement, we had a meeting you were busy.

We solved a load of issues, cliff notes:

.30-06 is the best caliber for Alaska
Exo packs suck
You can park off the side of highways
Antelope tastes gross but duck is great
Sous Vide is for hipsters
and only Greenhorn drinks IPAs anymore.

 

[noharleyyet]

If you are reading this, you are halfway to page 28......

 

[rwc101]

and only Greenhorn drinks IPAs anymore.

 

[Irrelevant]

sure you can put it in the mojave and not a sheep corridor...

That's my point.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I think very very few guys on here are gonna agree with supporting green energy on public lands!

I am all for it, in the right place. Just like i am all for a O&G well in the right place. Just like i think a coal mine in the right place is a great idea.

I received an email from John Gale, BHA national employee, requesting support for protest of a BLM lease for O&G development in SW Wyoming. He was advocating protesting all the lease parcels because most of them fell in either Sage Grouse PHMA or GHMA and these areas were very important to BHA's work on SG. I disagreed and stated that a targeted approach to to lease parcel protest was the best. I stated that I felt some of these lease parcels were great places to drill a well. I lost that argument. Fair enough, cant win them all and I supported the protest. As long as BHA carries this stance forward with it opposition to wind and solar development on SG PHMA and GHMA then I wont call out the hypocrisy. If they don't then i will. Here is a map of SG PHMA and GHMA in Wyoming.

 

[88man]

I am all for it, in the right place. Just like i am all for a O&G well in the right place. Just like i think a coal mine in the right place is a great idea.

I received an email from John Gale, BHA national employee, requesting support for protest of a BLM lease for O&G development in SW Wyoming. He was advocating protesting all the lease parcels because most of them fell in either Sage Grouse PHMA or GHMA and these areas were very important to BHA's work on SG. I disagreed and stated that a targeted approach to to lease parcel protest was the best. I stated that I felt some of these lease parcels were great places to drill a well. I lost that argument. Fair enough, cant win them all and I supported the protest. As long as BHA carries this stance forward with it opposition to wind and solar development on SG PHMA and GHMA then I wont call out the hypocrisy. If they don't then i will. Here is a map of SG PHMA and GHMA in Wyoming.
View attachment 120588

Wind energy gotta be the most disruptive energy out there. What about other species?? What would a good site for wind energy look like? The green energy foot print is greater than the o&g footprint.

 

[TOGIE]

What would a good site for wind energy look like?

freakin suburbia man. there's nothing peaceful about it to begin with so let's put more moderate sized wind turbines in everyone's backyards. put solar panels on everyone's roof too and forget about these bs public land developments, that, like wllm said, are all about the money

granted the wind blows better in some places than others... but you get my point

we've got ideal development already developed for solar

highlands ranch, colorado - the epitome of white suburbia - could power itself with wind turbines and solar, all within city limits, if they actually thought about it

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Wind energy gotta be the most disruptive energy out there. What about other species?? What would a good site for wind energy look like? The green energy foot print is greater than the o&g footprint.

Agreed...
although (35.4322169, -118.9955227)