Goodbye to BHA

[jake23]

In my view this is not really a minor disagreement that I have with an organization (one of which I have donated to in the past), but a fundamental difference in ideology. I am adamantly opposed to developing our public land. Especially for profit! If there was a natural resource that was found only on a piece of public land and we needed that to support our way of life, then I would be willing to negotiate on how we do that responsibly and with as little of an impact as possible to the environment.

This is different. These companies could easily go and purchase land to build windmills or solar on and build them as they see fit. There is nothing special about this being on public land, other than it is going to be dirt cheap and guarantee a healthy profit.

This bill at first glance appears to change the way the whole process works in regards to allowing companies to lease public land for energy production. Furthermore, it specifies that they will allow at least “X” amount to megawatts to be produced by a certain time frame.

This isn’t just a minor policy disagreement, this is selling out individuals who use these lands to either further an agenda, or make more money.

There are a lot of people/organizations who have the best of intentions, but do some pretty horrible things. I don’t give those people a pass because in the past they did some things right. I am certainly not going to give any of these organizations a pass this time either!

I would love to be wrong with how I view this, because quite frankly it makes me sick!

 

[HONEYBADGER]

They are supporting this because their dedication to their left leaning principles outweighs their dedication to wildlife and public lands. This is all about climate change and making a statement which side they are on without really saying it out loud. Basically they want to make a statement but still get your money.

Politics mean more to them than wildlife and public lands.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

^^^^^^^^
SMACKDOWN!!!!

 

[bullbugle307]

In my view this is not really a minor disagreement that I have with an organization (one of which I have donated to in the past), but a fundamental difference in ideology. I am adamantly opposed to developing our public land. Especially for profit! If there was a natural resource that was found only on a piece of public land and we needed that to support our way of life, then I would be willing to negotiate on how we do that responsibly and with as little of an impact as possible to the environment.

This is different. These companies could easily go and purchase land to build windmills or solar on and build them as they see fit. There is nothing special about this being on public land, other than it is going to be dirt cheap and guarantee a healthy profit.

This bill at first glance appears to change the way the whole process works in regards to allowing companies to lease public land for energy production. Furthermore, it specifies that they will allow at least “X” amount to megawatts to be produced by a certain time frame.

This isn’t just a minor policy disagreement, this is selling out individuals who use these lands to either further an agenda, or make more money.

There are a lot of people/organizations who have the best of intentions, but do some pretty horrible things. I don’t give those people a pass because in the past they did some things right. I am certainly not going to give any of these organizations a pass this time either!

I would love to be wrong with how I view this, because quite frankly it makes me sick!

To be fair, you really can't expect any group to want to throw FLPMA and the multiple use mandate out the window. If they want to be effective, they have to take a realistic stance that is in line with the law. I dont know what group you should align with with your ideals of not developing public land for profit at all. They'd have to be awfully extreme.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Got my august game news today and I flipped it open to this page as I looked at this post. How fitting.

 

[jake23]

To be fair, you really can't expect any group to want to throw FLPMA and the multiple use mandate out the window. If they want to be effective, they have to take a realistic stance that is in line with the law. I dont know what group you should align with with your ideals of not developing public land for profit at all. They'd have to be awfully extreme.

I certainly wouldn’t think that any of these organizations would throw the multiple use mandate out the window. I certainly don’t think that would even be prudent.

Perhaps I don’t understand what the multiple use mandate is?? My understanding is this;
'Multiple use' is defined in the Act as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people." (I quoted that from the FLPMA)

Does that mean that these windmills on public land is the best for the people? It doesn’t seem that way to me. To me it seems like these windmills on public land will best suit some power companies. What am I missing?

And I will clarify my stance on the development of public lands. I believe there are certain times when there is no other option other than to allow development of public lands. Say for example there is an abundance of some mineral or resource that can be extracted from public lands. In that example it would make sense to allow it to be utilized as long as the land was restored when the job was finished, and it was done in a responsible manner that minimized the impact on the land and wildlife.

In this case windmills and solar panels can be placed anywhere! Anywhere! The fact that they will be placed on public land is because it is cheaper than buying the land.

Any other company would have to buy their own land to operate their business. BLM doesn’t grant land leases to Harrahs so they can build a casino resort. I fail to see the difference in this regard.

I am certainly open to being wrong, and hope I am. Because I don’t want to see windmills littering the hillsides of Wyoming.

 

[bullbugle307]

My response was due to the fact that you said that you don't want to see development for profit on public lands at all. That in and of itself is against the multiple use mandate. That means no logging, no Oil and Gas, no grazing, no gravel pits on BLM etc...

You and I probably agree on a lot of things not being prudent or in the best interest of all stakeholders. I don't like a lot of the development that occurs on public lands either. But I would never advocate that there can't be any development for profit at all. That's really an extreme position and its not in line with legislation pertaining to how public lands are to be managed. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one probably.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

To be fair, you really can't expect any group to want to throw FLPMA and the multiple use mandate out the window. If they want to be effective, they have to take a realistic stance that is in line with the law. I dont know what group you should align with with your ideals of not developing public land for profit at all. They'd have to be awfully extreme

To be fair change ur mission statement.
According the BHA mission statement that was posted earlier there no way in hell they should be supporting this. Its crap plain and simple!

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I'm taking donations for windmills on some public lands in wyo and idaho. Anybody willing to throw a few bucks my way?

 

[jake23]

My response was due to the fact that you said that you don't want to see development for profit on public lands at all. That in and of itself is against the multiple use mandate. That means no logging, no Oil and Gas, no grazing, no gravel pits on BLM etc...

You and I probably agree on a lot of things not being prudent or in the best interest of all stakeholders. I don't like a lot of the development that occurs on public lands either. But I would never advocate that there can't be any development for profit at all. That's really an extreme position and its not in line with legislation pertaining to how public lands are to be managed. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one probably.

When I say develop I mean as in cut roads, build structures, etc. Not cut trees or graze it. That is using it in my mind. No different than shooting a deer in the forest.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I'm taking donations for windmills on some public lands in wyo and idaho. Anybody willing to throw a few bucks my way?

Oh wait I'm a member of BHA I already donated. ☹

 

[LuketheDog]

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.

Yeah, when's the last time you saw a guy flyfishing for trout or salmon in or around a wind farm? Plus, wind turbines are hell on raptors and you know that includes...ospreys...

 

[bullbugle307]

When I say develop I mean as in cut roads, build structures, etc. Not cut trees or graze it. That is using it in my mind. No different than shooting a deer in the forest.

You do realize that grazing and logging require development... don't you? Roads are cut, fences are built etc. And they have an impact. There is no such thing as using public lands without developing them to some extent. That goes for hunters for the most part as well.

I don't wanna come across like I'm real pro development of public lands, because I'm not. In fact, I love wilderness and wish the vast majority of WSAs would be designated. But I also understand reality, multiple use, and the need to pick our battles.

Besides that, I think that if we go denouncing all profitable development on public lands we're playing right into the PLT folks hands. If I was them, I'd love to be able to paint everyone who is against specific, egregiously bad development as just being anti development of public lands in general. That would give their arguments a big boost IMO.

 

[hossblur]

You do realize that grazing and logging require development... don't you? Roads are cut, fences are built etc. And they have an impact. There is no such thing as using public lands without developing them to some extent. That goes for hunters for the most part as well.

I don't wanna come across like I'm real pro development of public lands, because I'm not. In fact, I love wilderness and wish the vast majority of WSAs would be designated. But I also understand reality, multiple use, and the need to pick our battles.

Besides that, I think that if we go denouncing all profitable development on public lands we're playing right into the PLT folks hands. If I was them, I'd love to be able to paint everyone who is against specific, egregiously bad development as just being anti development of public lands in general. That would give their arguments a big boost IMO.

Rob Bishop was a cosponsor. The PLT folks love this bill. Don't forget the same oil companies that finance the PTL movement, are in on wind farms.

 

[BuzzH]

You do realize that grazing and logging require development... don't you? Roads are cut, fences are built etc. And they have an impact. There is no such thing as using public lands without developing them to some extent. That goes for hunters for the most part as well.

I don't wanna come across like I'm real pro development of public lands, because I'm not. In fact, I love wilderness and wish the vast majority of WSAs would be designated. But I also understand reality, multiple use, and the need to pick our battles.

Besides that, I think that if we go denouncing all profitable development on public lands we're playing right into the PLT folks hands. If I was them, I'd love to be able to paint everyone who is against specific, egregiously bad development as just being anti development of public lands in general. That would give their arguments a big boost IMO.

I can still hunt a clear-cut, grazing, and around oil and gas development. Areas around wind turbines and solar farms are no longer multiple use, those areas become single use and off limits to other users.

I can show you areas near Laramie where I used to be able to hunt elk and pronghorn that are now developed windfarms and I can no longer hunt there.

 

[RockinU]

I can still hunt a clear-cut, grazing, and around oil and gas development. Areas around wind turbines and solar farms are no longer multiple use, those areas become single use and off limits to other users.

I can show you areas near Laramie where I used to be able to hunt elk and pronghorn that are now developed windfarms and I can no longer hunt there.

I agree completely. I think putting wind farms on our land completely removes any opportunity for multi use, and tethers it to that lone use, but he does have a point. There is an undertone of anti-any development in parts of this thread, and I think we have to be careful with that, and recognize that while we need to fight bad developments like this wind farm crap tooth and nail, we also have to remain open minded about responsible multi-use development.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I agree completely. I think putting wind farms on our land completely removes any opportunity for multi use, and tethers it to that lone use, but he does have a point. There is an undertone of anti-any development in parts of this thread, and I think we have to be careful with that, and recognize that while we need to fight bad developments like this wind farm crap tooth and nail, we also have to remain open minded about responsible multi-use development.

Agreed. However, we senior citizen hunters and wildlife advocates adamantly assert that the most significant losses to huntable wildlife habitat have resulted from development ... so let's be really picky about what develop and where!
I get really irritated at realizing "multi-use" often means putting wildlife, habitat, and the pristine nature of wild lands at the bottom of the priority list. Too often it means "Let's allow any entity to do whatever they wish, merely to say we've compromised."

 

[tjones]

I've seen this before, guys will toss a good group over a single issue, yet continue to support the NRA cluster,,,SMH.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree completely. I think putting wind farms on our land completely removes any opportunity for multi use, and tethers it to that lone use, but he does have a point. There is an undertone of anti-any development in parts of this thread, and I think we have to be careful with that, and recognize that while we need to fight bad developments like this wind farm crap tooth and nail, we also have to remain open minded about responsible multi-use development.

I don't think anyone here has said absolutely no development of any kind on public lands. Judging by the shape of the landscape in the West, that surely hasn't been what we've done. Pull up google-earth and tell me we're stopping development on public lands. Clear cuts, roads, grazing, mining all being done on public lands and I don't think anyone is obtuse enough to think that's going to stop.

The problem with "multi-use development" from my view, is in the who gets decide what user groups lose and which don't. Many times there just aren't "compromises" to be had that work out for everyone. Some group has to give up something for another to get something. I just wonder where my "right" as a public lands user ends and where your conflicting "right" start?

The even bigger problem, IMO, is when Congress decides to stream-line the process and show favoritism to one user group over another legislatively. You rig the game so that even when, and its a fact of when, not if...the development occurs in areas other users find value in, have very little recourse to oppose, object, or file a lawsuit. Gutting the process to favor one user group over another is not in the spirit of what FLPMA, NEPA, RPA, etc. etc. were set in place to do. Those acts, regulations, and policies were put in place to give the average guy a voice in how we use our public lands and also a way to put a stop to it when we feel those same acts, regulations and policies are being violated.

Just for the record, I have marked my share of public land timber sales, conducted thinning, written management plans, and made recommendations for all kinds of extractive uses on both private and public lands.

But, as a citizen and public land user, I want to reserve the right to file an objection or lawsuit if I feel my wildlife, my right as a public land user, or wildlife habitat is taking it in the shorts.

 

[hossblur]

I'd be curious. I spent a week deep diving into this.

How many of you think supporting this bill wasn't about development, it was a nod to the climate change crowd?

That's what finally pushed me. No matter what I read, I couldn't find anything to convince me otherwise.