Removing the Public in Public Land Management Decisions

[Ben Lamb]

Ownership of the land matters little when you can summarily dismiss public sentiment and concerns about wildlife willy-nilly. Those who constantly tout "local-control" really only care about control.



https://medium.com/westwise/public-pays-the-price-for-energy-dominance-e824b924527d

The memorandum also kills Master Leasing Plans, a “smart from the start approach” implemented during the Obama administration to help the BLM be more inclusive of the public, and avoid conflicts between energy development and other public lands uses at the front-end of planning.

In 2010, when the Obama administration issued the reforms, oil and gas leasing was being driven by companies who decided when, where, and how energy development happened on U.S. public lands. Too often this industry-dominated process occurred at the expense of other critical uses, including outdoor recreation, wildlife protection, clean air, and fresh water. These common sense policies were put in place to restore balance to land management in the West, where the oil and gas industry has historically enjoyed unfettered access to U.S. public lands. Currently, 90 percent of lands managed by the BLM are open to oil and gas leasing and development, only the remaining 10 percent are protected for recreation, conservation, and wildlife.

By axing the Obama administration’s 2010 leasing reforms, Interior Secretary Zinke has further tipped the scales to favor extractive energy development, effectively silencing the voices of public lands stakeholders throughout the West. The administration’s new memorandum erases language ensuring that “there was no presumed preference for oil and gas” over other uses of our national public lands. Already oil and gas companies hold nearly 8,000 approved, but unused drilling permits — a record high — and sit on over 14 million acres of unused public lands leases, an area larger than Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont combined.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I'm shocked Zinke would do something like this.

 

[onpoint]

Shocked? Some (who paid attention to Z before all this ever developed) on here, are not.....
"I believe that this is one of those times that you hope for the best all the while your expecting the worst".
ShootsStraight 12-13-16
......I'm guessing you are one of us, Gr8bawana............

 

[VikingsGuy]

Those who constantly tout "local-control" really only care about control.
[/url]

True of both sides, on almost all issues. If you have DC you ignore the states, if you have the states you ignore DC - very few intellectually consistent approaches in politics these days, only the outcome matters any more.

 

[Gr8bawana]

facetious
image: http://www.yourdictionary.com/images/dictionaries/Wiktionary-logo.png


Adjective

Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

 

[onpoint]

facetious
image: http://www.yourdictionary.com/images/dictionaries/Wiktionary-logo.png


Adjective

Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

You either did not read, or did not comprehend my last sentence....

 

[onpoint]

True of both sides, on almost all issues. If you have DC you ignore the states, if you have the states you ignore DC - very few intellectually consistent approaches in politics these days, only the outcome matters any more.

True of both polarized sides, yes. Millions of us exist somewhere in between. Many of us on both "sides" are way more liberal and/or conservative than those of simple mind would guess:hump:
"very few intellectually consistent approaches in politics these days" - agree.

 

[shoots-straight]

It's been worse than I'd hoped for. It can get a whole lot worse before it gets better though.

ShootsStraight 2-5-18

 

[VikingsGuy]

Millions of us exist somewhere in between.

Probably true, but the middle does seem lonely these days.

 

[onpoint]

It's been worse than I'd hoped for. It can get a whole lot worse before it gets better though.

ShootsStraight 2-5-18

Ahh, another member of the "lonely right" or should I say the "lonely correct". Cold comfort ........... Date marked.

 

[Ben Lamb]

True of both sides, on almost all issues. If you have DC you ignore the states, if you have the states you ignore DC - very few intellectually consistent approaches in politics these days, only the outcome matters any more.

I very much agree with this.

I struggle with it from time to time just like anyone does. However, it is important to note that one side in this debate flies the flag of local control higher than others, yet they abandon that quickly when they have - power.

I've seen a lot of dumb things from both parties, but as far as conservation goes, the former administration was light years ahead of the current one in respecting state's rights and working collaboratively with states and local stakeholders to advance collaborative conservation measures.

 

[rideold]

I'm not terribly surprised....more disappointed. I haven't a care in the world about party politics or politics in general. I do care that our elected officials do their jobs. I see little being done in that respect these days when constituent opinion is disregarded and public input is rejected, ignored or removed.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I very much agree with this.

I struggle with it from time to time just like anyone does. However, it is important to note that one side in this debate flies the flag of local control higher than others, yet they abandon that quickly when they have - power.

I've seen a lot of dumb things from both parties, but as far as conservation goes, the former administration was light years ahead of the current one in respecting state's rights and working collaboratively with states and local stakeholders to advance collaborative conservation measures.

Unfettered control by either side will seriously impair public land hunting over time. Utah-style conservatives imperil public lands, while PETA-style California lefties imperil legal right to hunt animals, and the Dems promise that "we are OK with firearms for hunting" has all the veracity of, "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan". As said before, public lands hunters are in a hard spot between two crazy rocks.

 

[onpoint]

Unfettered control by either side will seriously impair public land hunting over time. Utah-style conservatives imperil public lands, while PETA-style California lefties imperil legal right to hunt animals, and the Dems promise that "we are OK with firearms for hunting" has all the veracity of, "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan". As said before, public lands hunters are in a hard spot between two crazy rocks.

As far as guns go - these things are in my possession in my house. The boogeymen WILL have to physically remove them from my possession.
As far as the "PETA style lefties" - "they" will have to physically restrain/stop me from being a consumptive user of fish/wildlife resources.
Those very fish/wildlife resources and the habitat which supports them and the land that allows me (us) to do this stuff is a commodity which can be altered and even lost (to the public) and the usurpers don't have to come to my home, nor confront me in the field to do it.
Seems, the comparison of threats lead to a clear conclusion for me - at least which is more currently imperiled.
Sure there is plenty of disagreement - carry on.

 

[VikingsGuy]

As far as guns go - these things are in my possession in my house. The boogeymen WILL have to physically remove them from my possession.
As far as the "PETA style lefties" - "they" will have to physically restrain/stop me from being a consumptive user of fish/wildlife resources.
Those very fish/wildlife resources and the habitat which supports them and the land that allows me (us) to do this stuff is a commodity which can be altered and even lost (to the public) and the usurpers don't have to come to my home, nor confront me in the field to do it.
Seems, the comparison of threats lead to a clear conclusion for me - at least which is more currently imperiled.
Sure there is plenty of disagreement - carry on.

Trespass, illegal firearms in the field (I don’t hunt in my house, my wife says it makes a mess) unlawful hunting would all be equally easy to enforce so your delineation of priorities seems a little off, but as you say, opinions vary.

 

[onpoint]

Ain't it great seeming to be on the same team while having two completely different understandings of the playbook? I find myself wondering if many of us are even on a similar team anymore.
I have a sneaking hunch where and how one lives has some bearing, here.
Having spent my entire 55 year life immersed - work, play, waking and sleeping moments -in this stuff maybe has some bearing also.....
From my perspective, good luck to us all. We're gonna' need it.

 

[rtraverdavis]

Ownership of the land matters little when you can summarily dismiss public sentiment and concerns about wildlife willy-nilly. Those who constantly tout "local-control" really only care about control.

Even though I reached out to you via PM Ben, I’ll put this question out there so others can and get the help and insight you provided me with. (Thank you again!) Here’s the question:

So what do we do? Who do we reach out to/how do we reach out to at least attempt to start turning things around, rather than just get all worked up over it? I called my congresswoman’s local office tonight and told them I didn’t like it. I support BHA, TRCP, and other local and national wildlife conservation organizations who tell the electeds they don’t like it. But what can we do to be heard if those with power are shoving their heads so far up their own asses so as to deliberately not hear us?

 

[1_pointer]

Ownership of the land matters little when you can summarily dismiss public sentiment and concerns about wildlife willy-nilly. Those who constantly tout "local-control" really only care about control.



https://medium.com/westwise/public-pays-the-price-for-energy-dominance-e824b924527d

Public comment periods (to include provisions to protest and/or appeal) on the NEPA documents for both leasing and development are still required, correct?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Public comment periods (to include provisions to protest and/or appeal) on the NEPA documents for both leasing and development are still required, correct?

Sometimes. Other times it is discretionary and up to the different offices and state directors.

Other times, comment period/protest periods are reduced to a timeframe that will require more lawyers and experts rather than empowering citizens to comment. This is an action that is specifically designed to benefit industry, not the public.

It is a net loss of public input to public land decisions, correct?

 

[1_pointer]

I do not recall ever having participated or reviewed a NEPA document (EIS, EA, CX, DNA) that did not have a public comment period. Nor have I ever heard of the public comment period being discretionary. Thus, the question I asked.