shootbrownelk
Well-known member
Pro oil/gas doesn't mean anti environment? Take a drive through the Jonah field sometime, and get back to me.
Moving forward on public land
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
Pro oil/gas doesn't mean anti environment? Take a drive through the Jonah field sometime, and get back to me.
sbhooper
Well-known member
Gee. Last time I checked, we NEED oil and gas production in this country. Everybody wants it, but nobody wants it on the precious public land. You cannot have it both ways.
It still amazes me how many people were ready to throw the entire country under the bus by electing Hellary, on the preconceived notion that Trump will get rid of the public lands. Why not wait and see what his approach is? This is going to be a process and not happening over night. Fight the battle in congress.
I guess it is more important that it is all locked off as national parks and monuments, where no one with firearms is allowed-incredible hypocrisy going on here.
I have nothing against wise sustainable use of our public lands. I do have a problem with how most resource extraction industries do not mitigate their messes after abusing the rules during the use.
Logging,oil,& mining do not seem to know how to follow up on their actions,and the cattle/sheep grazers are almost as bad. They leave it overgrazed, and or a wasteland and we the taxpayers pick up the bill for the cleanup,which is always to little, too late.
It's as simple as pack it in-pack it out. Drill it,pump it but clean up the mess after.Same with mines. Graze it wisely & let it rest.
Logging,oil,& mining do not seem to know how to follow up on their actions,and the cattle/sheep grazers are almost as bad. They leave it overgrazed, and or a wasteland and we the taxpayers pick up the bill for the cleanup,which is always to little, too late.
It's as simple as pack it in-pack it out. Drill it,pump it but clean up the mess after.Same with mines. Graze it wisely & let it rest.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
That changed not long ago. Your sarcastic "hypocrisy" is not valid, hooper.
But your assertion for the need for gas and oil is valid. Resource extraction is occurring on public lands now, but the concern and restrictions have evolved from irresponsible practices and lack of damage mitigation, as previously discussed. It's the old pendulum effect and the damage to public lands has swung too far. I think you are right in putting the responsibility on Congress to find a good balance.
You CAN have it "both ways"!
Last edited:
dcopas78
Well-known member
I'm with hank4elk on this. I think there has to be a wise, sustainable use solution that doesn't become a detriment to the environment or to public use/access or public ownership. I honestly don't know how that is going to happen unless both sides meet in the middle somewhere, but there shouldn't be a compromise on ownership status. It must remain public after activities have seized and reclamation has been completed. I like Kentucky's program in place for the reclaimed mining lands that the elk use, although from my understanding, it came about after the lands were left in a disaster state from strip mining. I definitely don't want to see that happen to public lands.
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Oh, did Trump actually win? I hadn't heard. Do you think the Wilkes and Kochs will let me pay to hunt on their new ranch? Will I need a houndstooth jacket with leather elbow patches?
If you support the Grand Canyon National Monument proposal, I suspect you've never hunted units 9, 10, 12 and 13 in Arizona. I can assure you that even if hunting is allowed in those units under the monument proposal hunting will be heavily impacted just due to the changes in the ability to travel in an area with such low animal densities.
As someone who intends to hunt Arizona in the future, I'm adamantly against the Grand Canyon Monument proposal. If I was a hunter in Arizona I would be against this proposal and doing all I could to stop it. Many of these units are now heavily dependent on man-made water sources due to many issues such as climate change, PJ encroachment, and other issues related to the historic habitats. With those changes traditional water sources have dried up and the animals are far more dependent on human made water sources. Under the monument proposal the ability to construct new ones or maintain the existing ones would be heavily compromised.
Be careful what you wish for.
As someone who intends to hunt Arizona in the future, I'm adamantly against the Grand Canyon Monument proposal. If I was a hunter in Arizona I would be against this proposal and doing all I could to stop it. Many of these units are now heavily dependent on man-made water sources due to many issues such as climate change, PJ encroachment, and other issues related to the historic habitats. With those changes traditional water sources have dried up and the animals are far more dependent on human made water sources. Under the monument proposal the ability to construct new ones or maintain the existing ones would be heavily compromised.
Be careful what you wish for.
BF,I agree about the GC expansion and massive wilderness designations.
Locally I'm also against enlarging some of the Pecos & Cibola Forest into wilderness onto historic human use areas that are already surrounded.
I do have a problem with limited use that the NP system has in place too in some respects.
Locally I'm also against enlarging some of the Pecos & Cibola Forest into wilderness onto historic human use areas that are already surrounded.
I do have a problem with limited use that the NP system has in place too in some respects.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Considering AZ regulations I'm not very enthusiastic about hunting there. And given their historic love of mines/mining, I would tend to hedge me bets towards ensuring it's protected when I visit versus ensuring if I ever drew a tag I could hunt it.
Or you could work with the administration and ensure that the necessary practices are locked in , including motorized use and water management, to the enabling act in order to protect the land, and maintain the recreational and wildlife assets.
Given the ncertainty of what we're facing, I tend to favor protecting as much public land as possible right now, while we have a conservation minded president who isn't beholden to the same interests trying to dismantle public lands.
I just read a quote from Don Jr. in an interview he's given since the election.
"The platform is we have to keep public lands public. Utah has done a great job with state land. Other states have not. The typical Republican platform has been to transfer that land to the states. The problem is some of these states would just sell this land to people and then you have a private hunting reserve. If know you have to drive three hours to go hunting, you may not do it anymore. It doesn’t really matter if the state has it or the government has it, so long as that land stays truly public and the access stay open to everyone."
Doesn't give me any warm fuzzies.
"The platform is we have to keep public lands public. Utah has done a great job with state land. Other states have not. The typical Republican platform has been to transfer that land to the states. The problem is some of these states would just sell this land to people and then you have a private hunting reserve. If know you have to drive three hours to go hunting, you may not do it anymore. It doesn’t really matter if the state has it or the government has it, so long as that land stays truly public and the access stay open to everyone."
Doesn't give me any warm fuzzies.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Sounds like a quid pro quo statement in payment for some Utah based support of Trump.
It is of significant concern. Did anyone remember that the Republican executive branch will be working together with a Republican Congress ... with a platform plank clearly and strongly advocating transfer of federal public lands to the states?!
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Utah has done a great job with State land? WTF is he smoking?
elkduds
Well-known member
"Gee. Last time I checked, we NEED oil and gas production in this country. Everybody wants it, but nobody wants it on the precious public land. You cannot have it both ways."
Why do we need more oil and gas production? So we can use it all up in 40 years? So we can export it? So we can have surpluses stockpiled and pay 60 cents/gallon? So we can flood our coastal cities even faster?
"It still amazes me how many people were ready to throw the entire country under the bus by electing Hellary, on the preconceived notion that Trump will get rid of the public lands. Why not wait and see what his approach is?"
Because he has no approach, creates nothing. He makes deals, exchanging something for something else, and takes his cut. The approach is already in place as several posters above have illustrated. It is the Republican party platform, to cash out of public lands after extracting cash-value resources. The extraction will continue to be done @ bargain basement prices, via minuscule royalties/grazing fees to the landowners (we, the people). The result will continue to be record profits for industry @ the expense of the American people. The only concessions Big Oil ever made to profitability have been forced on them by legislation. With Republicans in both houses, who will pursue such legislation? When Trump says 70% of regulations are unnecessary, rest assured environmental protections head the list.
If we wait, lobbyists are already lining up deals that will never see public scrutiny. Our national public lands legacy will erode far faster under the stroke of a pen than by any natural forces.
"I guess it is more important that it is all locked off as national parks and monuments, where no one with firearms is allowed-incredible hypocrisy going on here."
Without habitat there will be no game. National parks and monuments preserve habitat. Industrial development degrades habitat. National monuments can allow hunting. We do not have game so we can hunt. Rather, we hunt so we can have animals.
Why do we need more oil and gas production? So we can use it all up in 40 years? So we can export it? So we can have surpluses stockpiled and pay 60 cents/gallon? So we can flood our coastal cities even faster?
"It still amazes me how many people were ready to throw the entire country under the bus by electing Hellary, on the preconceived notion that Trump will get rid of the public lands. Why not wait and see what his approach is?"
Because he has no approach, creates nothing. He makes deals, exchanging something for something else, and takes his cut. The approach is already in place as several posters above have illustrated. It is the Republican party platform, to cash out of public lands after extracting cash-value resources. The extraction will continue to be done @ bargain basement prices, via minuscule royalties/grazing fees to the landowners (we, the people). The result will continue to be record profits for industry @ the expense of the American people. The only concessions Big Oil ever made to profitability have been forced on them by legislation. With Republicans in both houses, who will pursue such legislation? When Trump says 70% of regulations are unnecessary, rest assured environmental protections head the list.
If we wait, lobbyists are already lining up deals that will never see public scrutiny. Our national public lands legacy will erode far faster under the stroke of a pen than by any natural forces.
"I guess it is more important that it is all locked off as national parks and monuments, where no one with firearms is allowed-incredible hypocrisy going on here."
Without habitat there will be no game. National parks and monuments preserve habitat. Industrial development degrades habitat. National monuments can allow hunting. We do not have game so we can hunt. Rather, we hunt so we can have animals.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
When the EPA gets "field dressed" it will NOT be the gutless method.
elkduds
Well-known member
How about we, the consumers of guns/ammo/trucks/software/tackle/OHVs/outfitters/etc, convince all NRA donors, corporate and individual, to instead give those funds to groups lobbying to preserve federal lands? The 2nd amendment is under no threat, so contributing to its defense is a waste. Those millions of $ will buy a lot of influence in favor of public lands. All we have to do is ask, in a unified and convincing voice.
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
Great point, except the 2nd amendment is always under constant threat according to the ceaseless phone calls from the NRA. And they are kinda right, at the state level. But with Rs controlling EVERYTHING federal for now, why not throw more resources into defending public land??
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
This is one of the best posts I've read. ^^^ It makes all the sense in the world.
Unfortunately, we are not dealing with sense. We are dealing with money and conservatives/Republicans. The NRA, as beginerhunter opines above, will keep up the screaming about municipal and state threats to the 2nd Amendment just to keep their pockets lined, all while supporting public land transfer proponents in the House and Senate.
It will be up to the membership to make their membership, and contributions, conditional upon opposing those jackwagons. What all public land proponents must come to terms with is the fact that the NRA is populated with and lead by conservatives and Republicans who's concern about the 2nd Amendment is tempered by their equal concern for other conservative/Republican issues. The 2nd Amendment is not an after-thought but it is far from being their sole concern.
Convincing donors to take their money elsewhere is a good idea. I just don't know how that could be done.
Last edited:
