An interesting take on Pebble

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
1,059
Location
Montana
Over my career I have read the BS out of the environmental community. It is designed to enflame the citizens with lies and emotional pleas. Rarely is there enough truth to warrant a look. The EPA is a litigation agency not designed for solutions but for conflict. I can provide screwups far beyond my willingness to type. Remember : If the government was the answer - the question was really stupid! The state agencies have more than enough political influence depending on the year let alone personal bias of the state players. You just need to sit through a few enough internal bitchy cranky meetings to understand the similarities to a WWE convention.
I was with you until this post. It seems you went off the rails a bit. The EPA is there because companies severely polluted OUR environment to the detriment of the average citizen. The "investor sales pitch" recording is out there. For me it isn't just about the science or conclusion of the EIS. It is about how can anyone trust the scientist or EIS reports when the leadership talks like this? He clearly only cares about the money. It would be nice if he at least pretended to care about the fisheries resource. This is also why Americans are sick of politicians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/09/22/pebble-mine-secret-tapes/
 

diamond hitch

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
580
Location
Western Montana
Never said industry wasn't without some blame. Most of the problems we see out there are really lack of knowledge or the evolution of knowledge over time. Many of the problems couldn't even be tested for until the early 80s. Understanding for many came in the 90s but not because of the EPA. Closer to in spite of. Many solutions were offered to the EPA in the 80s but not accepted for 20 years +. Many problems in the EPA with mining relates to the lack of a single mineral professional on staff. If you don't understand the problem its extremely hard to solve it. You can make it look nice - for a while. But not fix it.
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,689
Location
SE Montana
Agreed, kinda.
...
Bio: This herd can support 10 does being kill this year

Rancher to public: I’m going to act sustainably and kill 10 does

Rancher to buddy at wildlife commission: I’m gonna shoot 50 that cool.

Buddy at wildlife commission: Dude we’re bros 50 is fine.
.....

Gross oversimplification science was bad since the operator lied about the scale of the operation by orders of magnitude.
This is a little more accurate on how this goes.

Rancher to FWP Bio: We sure have a lot of deer in the fields, We need to shoot some does.

FWP Bio to rancher after using science: We can issue 11,000 doe tags and each hunter can buy a fist full of tags in region 7
Rancher to Bio: Great, while thinking I would like to thin the doe herd but I am not going hog wild or letting every Tom, Dick and Harry off the street fill a pickup with does.

Rancher to friends and family: Buy some doe tags and come out and shoot some does fatted on alfalfa.

Outfitter to rancher: Whoa, My clients want to see lots of deer and we need those does to bring bucks down to the the bottoms during the rut.

Rancher to friends and family: We might need to take a rain check on the doe hunting until at least after turkey day when the outfitter is done.

Mean while FWP gives the impression that all of region 7 is over run with deer so every Tom, Dick and Harry from all parts of the county comes to Region 7 to fill a truck with deer. When they get here they find that there is little access to where most of the does live, but they are not going home with un cut tags so they shoot some public land does.

Does on public decide that their current address is no longer safe so they relocate to private and the cycle repeats.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
9,346
Location
Manetheren
This is a little more accurate on how this goes.

Rancher to FWP Bio: We sure have a lot of deer in the fields, We need to shoot some does.

FWP Bio to rancher after using science: We can issue 11,000 doe tags and each hunter can buy a fist full of tags in region 7
Rancher to Bio: Great, while thinking I would like to thin the doe herd but I am not going hog wild or letting every Tom, Dick and Harry off the street fill a pickup with does.

Rancher to friends and family: Buy some doe tags and come out and shoot some does fatted on alfalfa.

Outfitter to rancher: Whoa, My clients want to see lots of deer and we need those does to bring bucks down to the the bottoms during the rut.

Rancher to friends and family: We might need to take a rain check on the doe hunting until at least after turkey day when the outfitter is done.

Mean while FWP gives the impression that all of region 7 is over run with deer so every Tom, Dick and Harry from all parts of the county comes to Region 7 to fill a truck with deer. When they get here they find that there is little access to where most of the does live, but they are not going home with un cut tags so they shoot some public land does.

Does on public decide that their current address is no longer safe so they relocate to private and the cycle repeats.
No, because I was talking about pebble and using hunting as a medium to relate events to someone. Your just getting your panties in a twist about a parable, because the fictional narrative apparently hits too close to home.

I changed it to sports, so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.

It’s the patriots team owner, this is specifically talking about recent events, someone should absolutely right an opposing viewpoint on the parable. 🤦‍♂️
 
Last edited:

406dn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
679
This is a little more accurate on how this goes.

Rancher to FWP Bio: We sure have a lot of deer in the fields, We need to shoot some does.

FWP Bio to rancher after using science: We can issue 11,000 doe tags and each hunter can buy a fist full of tags in region 7
Rancher to Bio: Great, while thinking I would like to thin the doe herd but I am not going hog wild or letting every Tom, Dick and Harry off the street fill a pickup with does.

Rancher to friends and family: Buy some doe tags and come out and shoot some does fatted on alfalfa.

Outfitter to rancher: Whoa, My clients want to see lots of deer and we need those does to bring bucks down to the the bottoms during the rut.

Rancher to friends and family: We might need to take a rain check on the doe hunting until at least after turkey day when the outfitter is done.

Mean while FWP gives the impression that all of region 7 is over run with deer so every Tom, Dick and Harry from all parts of the county comes to Region 7 to fill a truck with deer. When they get here they find that there is little access to where most of the does live, but they are not going home with un cut tags so they shoot some public land does.

Does on public decide that their current address is no longer safe so they relocate to private and the cycle repeats.

Hopefully, I'm not taking the thread on a new tangent.

I can certainly see the reluctance for a rancher with letting large numbers of hunters they do not know, to come on their land, and shoot a bunch of does.

It seems to me once a rancher decides to lease their land to an outfitter, they are accepting the abundance does as part of the exchange. The outfitter and their clients are far more interested in killing a modest number of larger bucks than they are in killing two or three does, and maybe a nice buck. That is something that a unguided hunter would likely welcome.

I can tell you that I will NEVER kill does for anyone when they make it clear that shooting a buck is not in the cards.

Returning to the Pebble mine,, the copper is not going anywhere. It will be there in a thousand years, if mankind needs the copper. My confidence that mining executives have a balanced view of society's needs is limited.
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,689
Location
SE Montana
No, because I was talking about pebble and using hunting as a medium to relate events to someone. Your just getting your panties in a twist about a parable, because the fictional narrative apparently hits too close to home.

I changed it to sports, so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.

It’s the patriots team owner, this is specifically talking about recent events, someone should absolutely right an opposing viewpoint on the parable. 🤦‍♂️
I am trying to point out that you are using the very outdated myth that ranchers just want to get rid of all the wildlife. Maybe this was true 40 years ago, but it is not today.
 

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
1,059
Location
Montana
Never said industry wasn't without some blame. Most of the problems we see out there are really lack of knowledge or the evolution of knowledge over time. Many of the problems couldn't even be tested for until the early 80s. Understanding for many came in the 90s but not because of the EPA. Closer to in spite of. Many solutions were offered to the EPA in the 80s but not accepted for 20 years +. Many problems in the EPA with mining relates to the lack of a single mineral professional on staff. If you don't understand the problem its extremely hard to solve it. You can make it look nice - for a while. But not fix it.
I'm not going to get into a discussion on your view that technical expertise is lacking in a government agency, because that just feeds the view that the Federal Government is the enemy (it's not) or that it should be done at the state level (where technical expertise is more prevelant - wait...scratch that). What I will point out is that the EPA didn't deny the permit, nor did a judge deny the permit because of some lawsuit from an environmental group. The COE did so the request of its head boss. I agree it smells of rotten political action, which we agree is not how these things should be done. But I admit to being pollyannish on these things.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
9,346
Location
Manetheren
I am trying to point out that you are using the very outdated myth that ranchers just want to get rid of all the wildlife. Maybe this was true 40 years ago, but it is not today.
Dude, I'm literally not, not at all, even a bit. The entire thing was a sophomoric allegory, I said as much... twice.

I'm sure someone pitched a fit to orwell about how he had a gross misunderstanding of the biology of pigs and horses and had probably never visited a farm 🤦‍♂️
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
9,346
Location
Manetheren
I'm not going to get into a discussion on your view that technical expertise is lacking in a government agency, because that just feeds the view that the Federal Government is the enemy (it's not) or that it should be done at the state level (where technical expertise is more prevelant - wait...scratch that). What I will point out is that the EPA didn't deny the permit, nor did a judge deny the permit because of some lawsuit from an environmental group. The COE did so the request of its head boss. I agree it smells of rotten political action, which we agree is not how these things should be done. But I admit to being pollyannish on these things.
My understanding, the company applied for a permit for X number of years and Y size = Z impact. The EIS said Z was fine.

The CEO told investors that the plan was for 5X number of years and for 50Y size. The EIS was therefore wrong by several orders of magnitude. Per the CEO once the mine was in place it would be easy to incrementally disturb the surrounding area because "hey it's f-d" now anyway.

That's bad faith development and IMHO should not be permitted.

*If this is an incorrect characterization please straighten me out.
 

theat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
702
Location
NW Montana
I am trying to point out that you are using the very outdated myth that ranchers just want to get rid of all the wildlife. Maybe this was true 40 years ago, but it is not today.

I disagree, there are certainly plenty of ranchers and farmers that would like there to be very little or no wildlife on their property. Obviously, most don't feel this way but I have encountered plenty that have expressed the same opinions about wildlife as the Central Montana rancher in this article.


Sorry wllm, I know this has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread, but I couldn't let this completely slide.
 

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
1,059
Location
Montana
My understanding, the company applied for a permit for X number of years and Y size = Z impact. The EIS said Z was fine.

The CEO told investors that the plan was for 5X number of years and for 50Y size. The EIS was therefore wrong by several orders of magnitude. Per the CEO once the mine was in place it would be easy to incrementally disturb the surrounding area because "hey it's f-d" now anyway.

That's bad faith development and IMHO should not be permitted.

*If this is an incorrect characterization please straighten me out.
That seems about right. But we have to infer that from the secret tape that was released. I tend to think if that recording wasn’t made public it would have been approved. Pure speculation though.
 

buck137

Member
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
43
Location
Western Montana
I am trying to point out that you are using the very outdated myth that ranchers just want to get rid of all the wildlife. Maybe this was true 40 years ago, but it is not today.
I've sat in game Game and fish meetings in my area, and have personally heard a couple of the area ranchers say, that one elk is too many on their property, so that thought process is still well and alive here.
 

antlerradar

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
1,689
Location
SE Montana
I've sat in game Game and fish meetings in my area, and have personally heard a couple of the area ranchers say, that one elk is too many on their property, so that thought process is still well and alive here.
If this was truly the case, then they would allow unlimited access.
I Guess I can not feel sorry for people that bitch about wildlife and restrict access.
 
Top