jake23
Active member
Well said Buzz! You are definitely better with words than I am!
Goodbye to BHA
- Thread starter hossblur
- Start date
Well said Buzz! You are definitely better with words than I am!
Haven't been in NRA for a decade. But it is interesting you bring up that blind support of NRA.
I hear that same "good work" argument in my state for a REASON to support SFW.
Don Peay has pulled millions using that line
Irrelevant
Well-known member
In several follow up emails between John Gale and I, it seems like in his opinion this is actually a step in the right direction for development of green energy on public lands, which prior to this, did not have nearly the amount of permitting (if any) that traditional energy projects faced on public land. He was a energy section lawyer under G W. He and I still disagree on what this particular legislation says and means, but it also didn't appear there was any "climate change" backing to it. Simply trying to get a better system than what is currently in place or what was going to be put in place by others without our input. I still would have preferred them to stay silent if anything, but as others have said, I'm not dropping my support over one piece of legislation.
Cool. I'm a member of RMEF too. Happen to recall when the last action alert they sent went out? Me neither. Fact of the matter is, if you join a group so that they'll fight on the Hill, it's only a matter of time before they do something you don't agree with. Hard to get mad at somebody that just asks you to get drunk at a banquet to support habitat. But noses get bloodied inside the Beltway and any group that'll take those punches for sportsmen is probably worth a benefit of the doubt or two. It's also worth pointing out that sportsmen, with multiple and obvious exceptions, are a notoriously lazy constituency that typically have to be shaken awake and drug into a brawl on habitat policy or public lands management. And that's one reason that streamlined renewable energy development on public land is a matter of when (or more), not if.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think one of the main sticking points in my mind is the permanence of renewable development. Trees grow back, roads eventually are reclaimed, we factor in a 30 year well life and then plugging costs to all our economic models... open pit mines and wind turbines will be there forever.
The comparison to a OG well pad site and a wind turbine/solar project is incorrect, wind turbines aren't time limited extraction.
The correct comparisons would be to a fossil burning power plant. Do we want power plants being built on public lands, imagine if this bill was advocating that we allow a utility to rent our public lands, fence them, and build power plants all over them.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I disagree, it's not a given nor should it be... in my mind permanent power plants on public lands is essentially corporate private land transfer. Bishop just proved he is way smarter than BHA, and has figured out how to use their biases against them.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I feel this is a meaningful distinction.
My kids and I fish in the mine tailings of yesteryear, I hunt elk in the second growth of last century's clearcuts, and even the removal of mountaintops, as terrible as the death of a mountain is, can be replanted and repopulated by flora and fuana to a degree.
I'm definitely not defending or endorsing any of those other extractive activities on our public lands, but these are structures, and I suppose if they were removed the land may look no different, but while they're there it seems like an absolute loss of the chunks of land they will occupy.
jake23
Active member
Awesome post! You nailed it! No we do not want companies building power plants on our public land.
JM77
Well-known member
Having sat on various boards, I've come to know the importance of mission statements. They identify the organization and allow the leaders to remain focused in good and bad times.
When a tough decision needs to be made, look to the mission; the answer is there and always will be. This is where BHA failed miserably, and in the same token has tied the hands of local chapters, like Wyoming, who will be effected the most.
When a tough decision needs to be made, look to the mission; the answer is there and always will be. This is where BHA failed miserably, and in the same token has tied the hands of local chapters, like Wyoming, who will be effected the most.
Absolutely key.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
The whole conversation reminds me of Mark Reisner's Cadillac Desert, large scale "renewable" projects, built at the expense of the public because private individuals realized their wasn't enough money to be made building them privately. Knowing what we know now would you want the Glen Canyon dam to be built, dams are the only large scale public works project on public lands I can think of... with the distinction being it's owned by the bureau of reclamation not a private entity.
........
“Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.”
― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire
........
“Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.”
― Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire
Last edited by a moderator:
R
rwc101
Guest
Having been a part of way too many strategic planning committees, I've seen broad mission statements used to justify what people already want to do more often than to guide decision making.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Cadillac Desert should be required reading for everyone.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Now that is a proposal.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Seriously? Most large dams are owned by BOR or Army Corp. Here in PNW there's quite a few also owned by power companies, but most of them are still publicly owned PUDs.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
This is what we need to be fighting for, what we need to be seeking to expand. This is what BHA is supposed to represent. Compromise on peripheral issues, but fight battles on core issues, even if they are losing battles.
Wear a Patagonia shirt into any non urban bar, then let me know about "taking it".
Like I said. We got enough fights. We can let the "cow fart" crowd argue with the trump crowd. It has ZERO to do with protecting public land.
If I'm wrong, show me the TAKE ACTION supporting a bill to streamline OG development. Or mining. Or logging.
If you take a position so unpopular with your members you have to build a website to explain, that's a problem.
Mule Creek put it best. Have the balls to come out and say this is a climate change nod, at least you'd get respect. Instead they issued press releases from 2 other groups.
I've gotten several messages from folks with more knowledge than I. I'm 100% right.
BHA is a LAND PROTECTION GROUP.
Supposedly.
