What is “green decoy”

[The Yetti]

I'm with you until you wrote this. BHA should be railing against all resource extraction? Where exactly do you think the resources humans need should come from? And, all human activity will lead to pollution of some sort. BHA, along with any pragmatic, sensible group or individual should be aware that humans will require resources and that minimizing the negative effects of activity should be the goal. To think otherwise is foolish, naïve and harmful. IMO.

Having a stance against resource extraction gives them more bargaining power in regards to responsible resource extraction. This gives you bargaining power and allows the other side to feel like you have given up something in the ultimate compromise. People have no issue when groups such as the NRA take a strong stance that may be more extreme than most people feel, but it gives them bargaining power to get to where they want. If you are negotiating a price, you never start where you want, you start lower, and then work towards what you want to pay. Same way with politics. Start at the extreme, end up in the middle where you want to be.

 

[Trial153]

The real Green Decoy symbol should be the dollar sign. $$$$$$$

Why do conservative values get checked at the door whenever profit enters the room?
I always wondered why conservatives loose their conservatism when it comes to conservation and the environment? For example there are ecosystems that are full of unknown variables in relation to development and extraction. I think its fair to say that in a lot of instances we really have no idea what if any effect these actions will have on the ecosystem in both the long and short term. You would think that someone of a conservative disposition would advocate for a conservative coarse of action? However it seems all to often the opposite is the case, its the " conservatives" who aggressively pursuing and advocating for these actions. And most times we are left to deal with the negative unforseen ramifications later on, many times at the taxes payers, the wildlife and the environments expense.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I currently work and have worked my entire career at E&P companies and at this point I've worked almost every major basin except for the Bakken. I'm also a BHA member.

Conservation groups should advocate based on their mission. BHA's pragmatism should come in deciding where they are going to make the most impact and focusing on those specific battles.

Voters and politicians should weigh the cost benefits of any industry, based on the insights gleaned from various sources including but certainly not limited to conservation organizations.

I have worked my entire career at mining companies and at this point I have worked in every major coal basin in the US except for Eastern met coal. I am also a WYBHA board member. Now that we got our street creed out of the way. BHA deciding where they are going to make the most impact and focusing on those specific battles is not railing against resource extraction of any kind. It is exactly what I believe they should be doing. Making sensible well thought-out decisions on what to rail against and what to stay quiet on.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

People have no issue when groups such as the NRA take a strong stance that may be more extreme than most people feel, but it gives them bargaining power to get to where they want. If you are negotiating a price, you never start where you want, you start lower, and then work towards what you want to pay. Same way with politics. Start at the extreme, end up in the middle where you want to be.

People have no issue with NRA's strong stance on any and all gun regulations? I would say that is exactly what people have issue with in regards to the NRA. Agreed on the negotiation analogy except you don't start at $0.

 

[The Yetti]

People have no issue with NRA's strong stance on any and all gun regulations? I would say that is exactly what people have issue with in regards to the NRA. Agreed on the negotiation analogy except you don't start at $0.

I'm talking about a lot of the people I see on other forums who dislike the BHA's stance on resource extraction or limiting vehicular access. They don't feel as extreme as the NRA's stance, but have no issue with the NRA having that stance, but do not measure BHA or other conservation groups with the same comparative yardstick.

I'd say being against resource extraction wouldn't compare to starting at $0. Preservation of an area, meaning no access what so ever, just "letting nature be" would be starting at zero. But from what I've seen, BHA isn't against resource extraction. just against resource extraction that can have a negative effect on the ecosystem, such as Pebble mine.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have worked my entire career at mining companies and at this point I have worked in every major coal basin in the US except for Eastern met coal. I am also a WYBHA board member. Now that we got our street creed out of the way. BHA deciding where they are going to make the most impact and focusing on those specific battles is not railing against resource extraction of any kind. It is exactly what I believe they should be doing. Making sensible well thought-out decisions on what to rail against and what to stay quiet on.

My point was that I have a vest interest in the industries that BHA is railing against, so it's not as if I don't have skin in the game.

Leasing federal lands in mule deer corridors or building a giant mine in Bristol bay are exactly the kind of issues that BHA should be focusing on.

"humans will require resources and that minimizing the negative effects of activity should be the goal" - Exactly in my mind "minimizing" means avoiding environmentally sensitive areas entirely. Lets focusing on the Permian, SCOOP/STACK, ect.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Leasing federal lands in mule deer corridors or building a giant mine in Bristol bay are exactly the kind of issues that BHA should be focusing on.

We are in complete agreement on this statement.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I'd say being against resource extraction wouldn't compare to starting at $0. Preservation of an area, meaning no access what so ever, just "letting nature be" would be starting at zero. But from what I've seen, BHA isn't against resource extraction. just against resource extraction that can have a negative effect on the ecosystem, such as Pebble mine.

I would agree. But this stance is not "railing against resource extraction (of any kind)". It is a pragmatic, sensible, well thought-out approach. BTW, all resource extraction will have negative effects. Some just more significant and detrimental than others.

 

[The Yetti]

I would agree. But this stance is not "railing against resource extraction (of any kind)". It is a pragmatic, sensible, well thought-out approach. BTW, all resource extraction will have negative effects. Some just more significant and detrimental than others.

Totally agree as well, although in some cases, responsible resource extraction can have a positive effect. I grew up near where all the massive fires were in California. A careful logging program could have prevented that as well as provide a more diverse habitat as well as provide lumber. As it seems that you're aware of, there is no easy answer for anything regarding our planet, and something must want to deal with in this 160 character and Facebook meme news world.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I would agree. But this stance is not "railing against resource extraction (of any kind)". It is a pragmatic, sensible, well thought-out approach. BTW, all resource extraction will have negative effects. Some just more significant and detrimental than others.

I would have to agree. BHA being against resource extraction in sensitive areas does not equate to activism against all mining and logging. I recall major opposition to the Pebble Mine and the proposed mine near the Boundary Waters.

I am a builder by trade but I would be admantly opposed to putting a housing development in the middle of the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness. I suppose that would make me a Construction Decoy?

 

[beginnerhunter]

My point was that I have a vest interest in the industries that BHA is railing against, so it's not as if I don't have skin in the game.

Leasing federal lands in mule deer corridors or building a giant mine in Bristol bay are exactly the kind of issues that BHA should be focusing on.

"humans will require resources and that minimizing the negative effects of activity should be the goal" - Exactly in my mind "minimizing" means avoiding environmentally sensitive areas entirely. Lets focusing on the Permian, SCOOP/STACK, ect.

The hangup seems to be your words "of any kind" when you really meant "where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the negative effects". Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth but that seems to be what you meant based on later comments, for example "minimizing".

Seems we're all on the same page. BHA is awesome and not a "green decoy" (idiotic term, should be "conservative decoy" ).

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The hangup seems to be your words "of any kind" when you really meant "where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the negative effects". Hope I'm not putting words in your mouth but that seems to be what you meant based on later comments, for example "minimizing".

I actually meant any of the various kinds eg. mining, oil and gas, etc. but that statement should have been more nuanced...

 

[BuzzH]

The answer is not to oppose resource extraction across the board in a State like Wyoming. Its just not a practical way to do business and you will have NO credibility in short order by just taking the opposition approach to resource extraction. Wyoming is going to extract resources, all there is to it.

What any group has to do, BHA included, is to identify the most crucial areas and keep them unoccupied where possible, and then be willing to mitigate as much impact as you can elsewhere. Compromise and collaboration is the only way forward in this State for any group wanting to have a seat at the table in regard to conservation, habitat/wildlife issues.

 

[Sytes]

Well stated, Buzz... That type of post brings people to the table to hear what is said vs...

Good post.

 

[psubowhunter54]

I mean BHA, TRCP, etc are anti energy development, as they should be, not sure how that view makes them anything other than conservation groups.

I think right place, right time is more appropriate. Protect some, not develop everything.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think right place, right time is more appropriate. Protect some, not develop everything.

In practice yes, philosophy no... sure they shouldn't fight/protest every single project, but they should be skeptical of any development.

 

[asdew1880]

Interesting resource on greendecoys.com; saw some organizations that I hadn't heard of that I should probably join! Thanks for the post.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Can't we just get all conservation groups to put an (R) or (D) in front of their names.
I mean who has time to research all of these technicalities.

 

[SharkDog]

Green Decoys

Environmental and left-wing foundations have poured millions into “sportsmen,” “hunting,” and “angling” groups, using them as cover to push their pet causes. See the evidence, and learn about the fringe agendas of these organizations.

www.greendecoys.com

When I started that video, I was sure it was a joke.

 

[Gila]

Gez...i thought they is talkin bout mallards...yup! redneck I be....

Ya all er like watchin a pendulum swing.....snoring!