Goodbye to BHA

[BuzzH]

Saw that TU did, not surprised. Climate change is a big issue for them, being a group advocating for trout and salmon species it is easy to see why.

Birds are a big deal to Audubon members...guess its not a big consideration for TU since trout and salmon aren't chopped up in wind turbines.

TU wants us all to support dam removal so their sacred cows aren't chopped up in hydro-electric turbines, but tell Audubon to stick it in their ear when the species they care about are whacked by wind turbines. I mean, lets just all "stick together"...unless my sacred ox is gored.

Hypocritical?

 

[BuzzH]

Trout Unlimited and TRCP also gave their stamp of approval.

TRCP statement on bill

I think the big difference between what this bill proposes and what happens currently are these 2 points:

• Direct at least 25 percent of royalties to a conservation fund.
• Direct another 50 percent to state and local governments where projects are located.

I'm not saying it's a great bill, just trying to answer some of the questions. Seems to me that if we could keep windmills, etc off public land altogether, that would be best, but considering that federal land is multi-use, that's probably not feasible. Maybe this is the best we can do?

How would that "multi-use" work out for deer/elk/pronghorn that avoid wind farms like the plaque work out? Given any to thought on how you intend to hunt that multi-use public land when its closed to hunting so wind turbines and solar panels are not shot or damaged?

Where do my rights to "multi-use" become infringed upon, stomped on, and ignored? Oh, I know, when there's a buck to be made on my public lands via a solar or wind farm, and when the politically appointed Secretaries of Interior and/or Ag tells me, you, and everyone else what's best for OUR PUBLIC LANDS.

I guess like the animals that avoid that kind of developed multi-use shit-show, I can just find "somewhere else" to hunt...trouble is, "somewhere else's" are getting harder and harder to come by.

If this is the best we can do, I'm wasting my time advocating for wildlife, public land, hunting and fishing...we may as well fold up the tent and call it a day.

 

[elkduds]

OP, it is your voice, use it how you want. I strive to tell my opinions to decisionmakers 5 times in favor of what matters to me, for every one time I post online.

I lost some respect for BHA when they told me they will not express an opinion RE wolf reintroduction because they term it a "wedge issue." I decided to remain a member in spite of that, rather than quittiing because of it. Several discussions w CPW management and interested sportsmen @ Round Table events this week confirmed my sense that Divide & Conquer is the simplest and most effective strategy to use against the very loosely aligned interests of sportsmen.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Birds are a big deal to Audubon members...guess its not a big consideration for TU since trout and salmon aren't chopped up in wind turbines.

TU wants us all to support dam removal so their sacred cows aren't chopped up in hydro-electric turbines, but tell Audubon to stick it in their ear when the species they care about are whacked by wind turbines. I mean, lets just all "stick together"...unless my sacred ox is gored.

Hypocritical?

I'm not sure how big the windmill problem is in regards to birds. Is there science that states it is/likely will impact birds at a population level? I'll have to check. Climate change will impact many species, including certain species of birds. I'm sure you are aware of this............

Also, I'd like to see proof that TU told the Audobon to "stick it in their ear." Pretty sure you just made that up to make your point

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Climate change will impact many species, including certain species of birds. I'm sure you are aware of this............

If CC is why BHA is supporting this bill, then BHA needs to change its mission statement and get the stones to say we are taking a position on climate change. I would at least respect that, even if I thought it was nonsense.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm not sure how big the windmill problem is in regards to birds. Is there science that states it is/likely will impact birds at a population level? I'll have to check. Climate change will impact many species, including certain species of birds. I'm sure you are aware of this............

Also, I'd like to see proof that TU told the Audobon to "stick it in their ear." Pretty sure you just made that up to make your point

Do hydro-electric dams chopping up trout and salmon impact those species at a population level?

Also, TU didn't have to "say" anything, their actions speak for themselves. I wish this was the only thing that wasn't considered about this bill.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Trout Unlimited and TRCP also gave their stamp of approval.

TRCP statement on bill

I think the big difference between what this bill proposes and what happens currently are these 2 points:

• Direct at least 25 percent of royalties to a conservation fund.
• Direct another 50 percent to state and local governments where projects are located.

I'm not saying it's a great bill, just trying to answer some of the questions. Seems to me that if we could keep windmills, etc off public land altogether, that would be best, but considering that federal land is multi-use, that's probably not feasible. Maybe this is the best we can do?

Most of the bill is language gutting the current project approval process to stream line it, essentially allowing operators to quickly deploy projects without the typical approvals you would need to say, BUILD LITERALLY ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON PUBLIC LAND.

In general I don't like public lands being developed. I'm not someone who wants to compromise on this issue. I will allow that it will happen and probably needs to happen to some extent and that their are lands that probably could be developed with little impact.

I've also spent my career in an extraction industry and have seen first hand how important the red tape can promote good behavior or at least mitigate bad behavior. On private land if you spill anything the land owners flip out, we need strong regulation to make sure it's the same on our public lands.


I would support a bill that says "if development occurs on public land then royalties go to x,y, and z", but why is a conservation org actively promoting bulldozing of habitat, with little regulation.


According to energy.gov this means, they shall permit in 5 years 10,775 turbines or 7,8125,000 solar panels or some combination thereof. To use the parlance we are accustomed to... that's a shit load.




It's the total wind capacity currently of Texas, it's 20% of the total number of turbines in the country.

 

[Irrelevant]

If you didn't get a response from John Gale (BHA Conservation Director), I did, within 2 hours is sending an inquiry earlier today.

Hi Adam,

I think there are some misconceptions about what this legislation means. I've been working on energy issues for a couple decades now and it's not always easy to convey all the details in a short online communication We're actually building an online information/education page on the website to help inform people about this bill.

The Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act (PLREDA, H.R. 3794) was introduced with the intention to provide proactive and responsible avoidance and mitigation for solar, wind and geothermal energy development on our public lands and consider fish and wildlife habitat as an up-front priority. The development of clean energy is becoming a growing presence on our public lands and it’s time for the hunting, fishing and conservation community to be practical and avoid devastating damages to fish and wildlife habitat and our outdoor pursuits. There are concerns and questions circulating around the purpose of the bill and it’s important to understand that this legislation doesn’t drive new development but sets more protective standards for energy projects than exist currently while ensuring that we prioritize conservation as DOI considers new projects.

Our support of this legislation is not an endorsement of energy development itself but a set of important guidelines that must/should be followed when development does occur (and it will and it already is regardless of whether this legislation moves or dies). It’s also worth noting that this bill doesn’t create any new incentives for increased development but it does direct responsible policy and could facilitate more realistic competition across market conditions at any given time. If we had better standards like this in place for oil and gas development, maybe the Jonah field and Pinedale Anticline WY would look much different today…and have better habitat and greater migratory connectivity. We can support more rigorous standards for development without supporting the activities themselves. Does that make sense?

Here are some more details as well:

Directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to identify appropriate areas for development.

• The bill directs DOI to identify additional priority areas for all proposed wind, solar and geothermal projects using the 2012 Western Solar Plan as a model (Priority areas are also known as Designated Leasing Areas in the case of wind and solar).
• Priority areas must meet certain criteria, including having access to transmission lines and being likely to avoid or minimize conflict with wildlife habitat, cultural resources and other resources and values.
• Increases incentives for renewable energy development in priority areas.
• Sets a goal for DOI to permit a total of 25 gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2025.

Distributes the revenue collected from renewable energy development on public lands in the following way:

• 25 percent would go to the state where the project is built;
• 25 percent would go to the county where the project is built;
• 25 percent of the revenue would be deposited in a fund for wildlife and land conservation and securing recreational access to public lands;
• 15 percent of the revenue collected would go to the Bureau of Land Management to facilitate permitting of renewable energy projects;
• 10 percent shall be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury for purposes of reducing the annual Federal budget deficit.

Improves inter-agency cooperation on renewable energy projects on public lands.

• Expands the establishment of a national Renewable Energy Coordination Office which will improve Federal permit coordination with respect to renewable energy projects.
• Directs agencies to provide staffing resources to ensure project permitting moves forward as efficiently as possible.

We stand by our long-held position in support of the multiple-use mandate our public lands are governed by but don’t believe that means every use in every place. BHA expects that all development and resource extraction to be done the right way in the right places and we hold all forms of energy to the same standards of accountability. If a project is highly consequential to fish and wildlife, WE WILL speak out against it. Where we are unsuccessful in preventing development, at least renewable will be held to a higher standard...which is important considering their longterm occupation on our public lands.

If you want more details, I’m happy to give other specifics or schedule a call with you too.

Best,

John

 

[Northwoods Labs]

You have to pick a fight you have a chance to win. You can't fight the sagebrush rebellion, wilderness, energy companies, and AOC.

A lot of folks do good work. But when I see "sportsman groups support", i see 3. And to be fair TRCP and BHA are pretty close to the same.

I'd been fine if they just stayed quiet.

Also. There is no bigger or louder critic of SFW. My main complaints with them are 2. One tags. 2. "Funds going to Wildlife".

Dig into this bill. The wording is similar for a REASON. It's not a steady stream. A lot of hands involved. And that "discrepancy" word pops up.

If we are going to yurn away and close our eyes, the land holder, US, should get something to show for it.

I agree with you on the bill. I am also against it. I'm not going to quit a group I support because of a position on ONE bill when they have been on the side I support of MANY bills. I will be contacting my representatives about this bill, rather than whining about BHA, TU, etc.

Do hydro-electric dams chopping up trout and salmon impact those species at a population level?

Also, TU didn't have to "say" anything, their actions speak for themselves. I wish this was the only thing that wasn't considered about this bill.

Really? This is hardly worth replying to. Really respect your opinions on here, you are certainly more knowledgable than I am, but wow, I guess Atlantic Salmon are just thriving aren't they?

Here is Audobon's stance on wind farms btw: https://www.audubon.org/conservation/audubons-position-wind-power

 

[Deleted member 18333]

neffa,

Don't get too excited he has been sitting on that exact email for 5 days. He sent me the same one on Sunday night. It failed to answer any one of the 7 specific questions I asked him. Its a press release an no more.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with you on the bill. I am also against it. I'm not going to quit a group I support because of a position on ONE bill when they have been on the side I support of MANY bills. I will be contacting my representatives about this bill, rather than whining about BHA, TU, etc.



Really? This is hardly worth replying to. Really respect your opinions on here, you are certainly more knowledgable than I am, but wow, I guess Atlantic Salmon are just thriving aren't they?

Here is Audobon's stance on wind farms btw: https://www.audubon.org/conservation/audubons-position-wind-power

I wouldn't call that a glowing endorsement of wind turbines...

Also, I gave a talk about a year ago to the local A.S. here in Laramie, the discussion regarding impacts to public lands was almost all spent on the impacts of the massive wind farms being proposed around here...

Didn't talk to a single member that was in favor of wind turbines littering my public lands.

For the record, hydro-electric dams also reduce carbon emmissions...so maybe lets fast-track a bunch of new dams...

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

If you didn't get a response from John Gale (BHA Conservation Director), I did, within 2 hours is sending an inquiry earlier today.



Our support of this legislation is not an endorsement of energy development itself but a set of important guidelines that must/should be followed when development does occur (and it will and it already is regardless of whether this legislation moves or dies). It’s also worth noting that this bill doesn’t create any new incentives for increased development but it does direct responsible policy and could facilitate more realistic competition across market conditions at any given time. If we had better standards like this in place for oil and gas development, maybe the Jonah field and Pinedale Anticline WY would look much different today…and have better habitat and greater migratory connectivity. We can support more rigorous standards for development without supporting the activities themselves. Does that make sense?

Here are some more details as well:

Directs the Department of the Interior (DOI) to identify appropriate areas for development.

• The bill directs DOI to identify additional priority areas for all proposed wind, solar and geothermal projects using the 2012 Western Solar Plan as a model (Priority areas are also known as Designated Leasing Areas in the case of wind and solar).
• Priority areas must meet certain criteria, including having access to transmission lines and being likely to avoid or minimize conflict with wildlife habitat, cultural resources and other resources and values.
• Increases incentives for renewable energy development in priority areas.
• Sets a goal for DOI to permit a total of 25 gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2025.

Did he actually read his own email let alone the bill?

There literally are better standards for oil and gas, and that's the point. Show me comparative language regarding any other industry operating on public land.

(e) No Effect On Processing Applications.—Any requirements to prepare a supplement to a programmatic environmental impact statement under this section shall not result in any delay in processing a pending application for a renewable energy project.

 

[Irrelevant]

neffa,

Don't get too excited he has been sitting on that exact email for 5 days. He sent me the same one on Sunday night. It failed to answer any one of the 7 specific questions I asked him. Its a press release an no more.

Yeah, I see that now. It actually addressed my email pretty good so I didn't pick up on it. I sent a follow up with quote of the bill. Hope he actually takes the time to respond.

 

[hossblur]

I agree with you on the bill. I am also against it. I'm not going to quit a group I support because of a position on ONE bill when they have been on the side I support of MANY bills. I will be contacting my representatives about this bill, rather than whining about BHA, TU, etc.



Really? This is hardly worth replying to. Really respect your opinions on here, you are certainly more knowledgable than I am, but wow, I guess Atlantic Salmon are just thriving aren't they?

Here is Audobon's stance on wind farms btw: https://www.audubon.org/conservation/audubons-position-wind-power

There's no whinning. And this isn't thevfirst position BHA has taken I've not liked. This was just the final one.

If Land, Randy, Buzz, etc called me Tom and wanted to go kick the crap out of Rob Bishop or Mike Lee(not literally secret service) id drive and by the dairy queen.

But for me, either I drifted to far from them or they from me.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with you on the bill. I am also against it. I'm not going to quit a group I support because of a position on ONE bill when they have been on the side I support of MANY bills. I will be contacting my representatives about this bill, rather than whining about BHA, TU, etc.



Really? This is hardly worth replying to. Really respect your opinions on here, you are certainly more knowledgable than I am, but wow, I guess Atlantic Salmon are just thriving aren't they?

Here is Audobon's stance on wind farms btw: https://www.audubon.org/conservation/audubons-position-wind-power

Northwoods, just to be clear...I support TU wanting to remove dams and their efforts to help cold water fish species. I also recognize that not just Atlantic Salmon, but virtually every single run of wild steelhead and salmon are in trouble in the lower 48. Based on that knowledge, I don't think I'd be too keen on say, a mule deer group as an example, wanting to fast track a bunch of hydro-electric dams because climate change is impacting mule deer habitat. I don't like when people are asked to pick winners and losers, I like it even less when its attempted to be done legislatively like this effort with solar/wind/geothermal. I like it even to a lesser degree when its my state, my public lands here in Wyoming that will take a brunt of that legislation. I like it even less when my State's wildlife is, no question about it, no matter where the proposed wind/solar projects are located, will 100% be impacted in a negative way. Wildlife that I/we/you know are already suffering from a shortage of habitat, security, and migration corridors. Further, wildlife that we spend 80 million a year to manage in a State that is seeing applications increasing at a rate of several thousand a year. I like it even less when the money isn't even a sure thing from his legislation and hardships to reduce the amount of money charged to the companies is at the whim of a political appointee. Even less palatable when there is NO guarantee to my State on the amount of the 25% of the funds in the wildlife account that will be returned to my State...and that there are string attached on how it can be spent.

To ice the cake, like wllm1313 said, the language of the bill guts the current approval process.

For the cherry to top it all, there will be no "multi-use" in those areas that are developed...I'm just out on my ass as a recreationist.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I'm not sure how big the windmill problem is in regards to birds. Is there science that states it is/likely will impact birds at a population level? I'll have to check. Climate change will impact many species, including certain species of birds. I'm sure you are aware of this............

Also, I'd like to see proof that TU told the Audobon to "stick it in their ear." Pretty sure you just made that up to make your point

Windmills are certainly deadly on birds of all kinds that inhabit the prairies. Raptors are killed frequently, as are sage grouse. I thought that the "Bird Blenders" effect on wildlife was common knowledge. The wind energy companies don't like to give out that information. Buzz is correct. Not to mention the fact that the energy produced by the wind turbines here in Wyoming goes to consumers elsewhere. We get the all the negative aspects and other states get the benefits.

 

[TheNorthStar]

And I just recieved a renewal notice in the mail this week. I'll have to sit down at home and go over this thread sometime this weekend.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Like I stated, I am not in support of this bill. I am actually surprised BHA took a stance on this, as it doesn't really pertain to their mission, which is protecting public lands. However, I guess I am not willing to ditch the group based on one piece of legislation. My point regarding TU was that their stance didn't surprise me because they are pretty active on the climate change front. Again, I am agreement with the majority on here that oppose this proposed legislation

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

However, I guess I am not willing to ditch the group based on one piece of legislation.

This is where I stand as well.

 

[geetar]

Birds are a big deal to Audubon members...guess its not a big consideration for TU since trout and salmon aren't chopped up in wind turbines.

TU wants us all to support dam removal so their sacred cows aren't chopped up in hydro-electric turbines, but tell Audubon to stick it in their ear when the species they care about are whacked by wind turbines. I mean, lets just all "stick together"...unless my sacred ox is gored.

Hypocritical?

Yessir I totally agree. If we could just step back and look at it as an eco system that needs all parts functioning instead of each group acting like spoiled brats that just want their way regardless of who else gets hurt. It’s sad that a lot of “conservation groups” actually seem more like government agencies than groups that fight for the species on their logo.