Rocky Mountain Front, the latest info

[BHR]

Buzz,

Quit replying to my post with your typical bull shit. Where have I stated that I would like to drill in the Front. You need to come up with some options, and come up with them fast if you want to stop the drilling. So far the only idea you have is to give tax credits to encourage conservation. You never have answered what energy source YOU use and what amount of insulation is in YOUR house.

News for you Buzz. Those that pay taxes and can take advantage of a tax credit can afford to buy their own insulation, and most of them already live in an energy effiecent house. I paid for my own insulation. Why can't you pay to insulate your own house. Matter of priorities. Those 1940 homes have had several furnace change outs already. Your 40% effiecent furnace argument is BUNK! Maybe we can talk the furnace companies into providing modern high effiecent furnaces to all in need at cost. You work for free, right?

Right now in Alaska, they are pumping massive amounts of natual gas that is a byproduct of the oil wells, back into the ground. No way to get it from a to b economically. There are plans for a pipeline, but that could take years, and would probably piss off more enviromentalists than drilling on the front would.

So whats your solution? I burn wood!

P. S. The new world record bighorn and all the big monsters coming from Alberta as of late, are coming from a herd that lives on an a reclaimed coal mine.

 

[tmsander]

The answer is to develop energy sources that don't require drilling. This may not be as simply done as stated, but one would think that a clear-headed administration not owing to one special interest or another could find the money to start. And I just wonder how things in the middle east would change under the threat of us no longer needing their oil.

Some promising developements have already been made. Unfortunately in our country of rule by money, many, most or all have been squashed by the establishements that would suffer from their adoption. Here is one example: A process was developed (at Los Alamos, I believe) some time ago where the hazardous waste from nuclear power generation could have its halflife reduced in half. This process generates even more energy that can be harnessed. In addition, the process can be repeated over and over on the same waste material until the half life is something like 10 or 20 years (I don't remember the specifics). So why in the world are we not pursueing such technologies? Because the oil industry doesn't want it!

 

[Ten Bears]

Good point TM.

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, you really are something...I tell you what.

The current world record bighorn came out of a park to winter range and was killed by an auction permit holder. I'd bet that ram doesnt even live 2% of its life on an "old reclaimed coal mine"...

By the way, whats your solution to solving the Front issue? Waiting for a pipeline wont get anything done.

I believe that conservation is the way to reduce the demand in the short term.

No, I aint asking furnace companies to supply anything at cost. What I'm asking for is increased tax credits for conservation efforts. Of course, I guess you'd rather see GW pass another 87 billion to Iraq, and give more subsidies to his oil and gas buddies. AHHH Yes, your tax dollars going to a good cause.

We wouldnt want those tax dollars spent in conservation efforts for the Front.

Oh, and would you mind explaining just what your stance is on drilling the Front? If you dont mind, maybe also tell us how MTFNAWS feels about it...as a group? Surely its been discussed.

Another item I thought I'd share is a little something I found on the MTFNAWS website about how great mining is for bighorns:

The old HD 500 herd winters on the Stillwater River. This herd declined concurrently with the development of the Stillwater Mine in the mid 1980’s. Ewes were under stress from all the activity and lambed in more secure areas that did not have as good forage as the old lambing areas. The original wintering area was about 2.5 square miles in size but the sheep now use small reclamation patches that are fertilized and watered by the mine. Attempts have been made to inter-seed the original winter range to promote its use by sheep, but they have still opted not to use it. Burning has been rejected by the USFS due to the steep nature of the original winter range terrain and its shallow topsoil with the propensity for erosion.

How do you suppose gas development will effect the bighorns on the front? It will look alot like this:

If you arent making a stand against oil and gas development on the front, then you're for it. Nice work Paul, you've gone all out on this issue.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-12-2003 13:32: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

Why do all of the big rams those high dollar auction tag holders have been taking of late have black horns? Rubbing on burned trees?

There are lots of gubberment give aways for energy conservation and alternative energy sources right now. You want more? You can get grants for switching over to solar or wind. Mostly being taken advantage of by the rich elitist types. Why don't you go that route?

When I was in college, I work one summer doing weatherization work. Some of the jobs were paid for by the local power company as part of deal negociated when setting their rates with the regulators. In return for a little higher rates, the community wanted them to provide low income weatherization services, of which they sub contracted it out to the guy I worked for.

We did lot's of things like caulking, insulating pipes and water heaters, drilling into walls and blowing in insulation, roof venting, replacing windows, and so on.

I saw some real dandy people that summer, but share the worst case with you. We showed up at 9:30 and got no answer. Called the boss, went back and knocked, no answer. At 10:00 as we were about to leave, a guy about my age comes to the door and lets us in. It was obvious he just woke up. We proceed to work, he jumps in his car and goes to McDonalds for a bag of breakfast. Him and his wife eat and then sit around watching tv and smoking cigs till noon, then its off to get lunch at Hardee's. More cigs, sitting, and tv. At close to quiting time, some druggy looking friends show up, they start drinking beers, smoking, and start to plan the nights activites. All this while we working around their house.

So who pays for this b s? The rate payers of course. Did it save any energy? Hardly.

When I used to build spec homes, I always put in the 90% + furnaces. Few other builders did. The 90% costed about $1,200 more than the 70% furnaces. I used it as a selling tool, but of course had to charge more to cover the additional cost. The smart buyers knew the benefit, but most didn't have a clue and often went for the cheaper home.

It's basically up to each person to do the right thing reguarding conservation. You can't mandate anything. Some will and some wont.

So now you've heard some of my background. You still have yet to answer my question about what YOU use to heat your home and how well it is insulated. Whats the matter?

Paul

 

[BHR]

Buzz, Ithaca, Gunner,

You guys ought to take notes on how Finalshot presents his case, and gets people to take a hard look at an issue that is dear to him. His technique is much more effective then your guy's. And notice how he answered my question about what energy source he uses the first time. I'm still waiting on your replies.

Finalshot,

I'm looking forward to hearing your comments in reguard to drilling on the front. My only source of information has been from articles in the paper and you know how reliable that can be. I honestly need more information before I can provide an acurate opinion. Thanks

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, I'll answer your question, then you answer mine.

My house is heated by natural gas, I live in Wyoming, what do you expect? Also, the furnace in the house is a 90% efficient type, my water heater is also a brand new energy efficient gas model. My highest monthly gas bill was $47.20 last winter, summer rates are 20ish a month. The insulation is roughly 10 inches in the attic. My windows are all double panes, the house faces the south and during the day, the heater seldom kicks on. I'd guess its about as energy efficient as I can make a house built in 1957.

I also agree that you cant mandate people to conserve, but giving incentive sure as hell aint mandating. But, like I said, the 87 billion is much better spent on Iraq.

What more evidence do you need on what will happen with regard to bighorn, elk, grizzlies, etc. when the gas companies drill the piss out of the Front?

It seems like on all the tough issues, you side step like a politician, good job.

Oh, and if you're afraid to tell us what MTFNAWS thinks about the drilling on the front, I can get that info.

 

[Ithaca 37]

BHR, "And notice how he answered my question about what energy source he uses the first time. I'm still waiting on your replies."

I think I answered that question about 6 months ago. You just forgot. I've done everything possible to make my home as energy efficient as possible, naturally.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Paul,

I use Hot Air to heat mine.... But you already knew that...

And I agree that Finalshot presents a good case. I did too, when I first started posting here.... But I find the more Smart Ass comments I post, the funnier the posts are to me...

And remember, to the Gunner, it is all about ME!

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

Thanks for finally replying on the question. Looks like you do your part to conserve. Wasn't too tough a question was it?

In reguards to Iraq. I would like a better accounting of money spent there. If Haliberton is porking our country, they need to pay for it big time. I'm not in favor of cutting and running however. Let's finish the job we started (and it was started for good reason imo).

Who says the gas companies are going to drill the piss out of the front? If they drill, they better do it right, because there will be a lot of people watching. Gas shortages have been a long time coming, it hasn't happened over night. There are less and less places socially aceptable to drill, with more and more demand every year. Where do you propose we drill for natural gas that is acceptable?

As for FNAWS, there is no stance on this issue yet. Maybe that could change. I'm interested in what Finalshot has to say. I did go to a function near Gibson Reservoir in the summer of 2002. The locals that hosted it were very proud of their area as they should be. No mention was made of the drilling issue. They were very unhappy with FWP management practices, and the wolf issue did not sit well with them either. Was their critisism merited, I am not sure, but would suspect that it was not completely.

So since I do not live there, and am not up to speed with all the available information, I would like to hear more before I make an opinion. Is that P. C. enough?

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-12-2003 21:09: Message edited by: BHR ]</font>

 

[Finalshot]

I'm back. Before getting deeper into the issues you should know that I have a philosophy about the environment and resource management learned through a lifetime of working for tribal government, federal government and the private sector on environmental matters. I've been at the top of this nations environmental protection administration and I've been the lone guy on the mountain.

Today, I like to use my skills to contribute to the thoughtful use of our environment. I'm no tree hugger, but I believe in limits, I do not like to fight gravity (it's very pervasive, free, and never takes a break, kind of like a beaver). I believe in the concept of true or total costs. I believe we must manage the human element also known as the demand side of the equation because the supply side is limited and our demands are usually unlimited. I believe in keeping our options open for the future generation of decision makers. I believe in the least total-cost over the long-run approach to resource management. I believe that you can never do just one thing - there are always trade-offs. I believe in real numbers; "normal" weather is a complete waste of my time as I believe that "normal" in Montana is what you see outside at any one minute - temperature and weather are extremely variable throughout the year(s), water is pervasive but precipitation is cyclical and the amount of water that exists in any location at any one time is exactly the amount that belongs there, no more and no less. I believe we should plan for the lows but be prepared to bank the rewards of the highs and save them to supplement during the lows (this is not code for new dams, in fact I believe in almost all cases, new impoundments are not the solution but rather a recipe for increased conflicts between demand and supply and during years of drought the problems associated with "over-demand" become the central focus of our attention and discussion thus diverting our attention away from the real problem created when we built a false sense of security call a dam). I believe we have not seen nor recorded the largest flood or the driest year(s) - new records are set all the time around the world. I believe it’s sometimes OK to use run-on sentences and long paragraphs.

I believe the climate is changing and humans have something to do with the rate of change. I believe in living today but planning for tomorrow. . . I have a yeoman work ethic but I'm not protestant and don’t believe we live to exploit what "god" has given us. And one final thing, I don’t believe just because you work real hard as a sodbuster you should receive un-equitable income transfers from the federal government (I'm not against income transfers or farm subsidies all together, some help is important and necessary, but sometimes we get a little carried away) - I'm from a farming/ranching background - still live it to some extent so I consider myself "in-the-know."

As for the subject at hand - the use of the Front Range and the future of one of the worlds last best places, the idea that this nation needs the two days of known reserves under the cliffs of the Front is hideous. I'm not for protection of the Front just because I'm against oil and gas, I have a truck - a must in northern Montana, but the Front is not a place we should allow to be used up. The legacy that oil and gas exploration will leave is one that your children’s children will not overlook. Those young people will blame you for the losses just as we blame the old-school hunters of the 60's and 70's for destroying our once abundant trophy mule deer numbers. How much is one of those trophy 35" 220 B/C bucks worth today? Imagine if there were hundreds of them you actually had a good chance of killing one, let alone seeing one. Think of how much enjoyment you would get out of looking at a dozen "shooters" every year in stead of praying you draw the right tag and get the heavy snow to drive the deer out of their holes.

In fact, if you really think about it, the demand for wild places with good, intact numbers of big game animals is ever increasing. I have no reason to believe this trend will end. Moreover, I believe the demand will only increase and at an ever increasing rate. Therefore, the Front Range should be left alone to grow bears, deer, elk, bighorns, cougars, wolves, eagles, ferrets, skunks, raccoons, little brown birds, and everything wild.

The interface of the mountains and the plains is almost gone everywhere along the front from Canada to Mexico. In Montana the interface or transition between the tall peaks and the flat plains is used by all the animals year-round. It's also the place where drilling will increase under current policies. There is not other place like it on this continent.

The solution is easy to explain but hard to enforce. It goes like this.

If everyone were to slow down from 70+ mph to about 60-65 we would save enough energy/gas to not need the energy stored along the front. The same is true for heating our homes. A little bit of energy conservation now could save the front. If our auto's got only 2-3 mpg better we would not have to take the energy from the front. I know it's natural gas they are after along the front, but energy is energy.

There are not enough "Fronts" left to destroy this last vestige. As I said before, the best and wisest use of the Front is for growing wild things and wild things don’t grow in oil/gas fields.

Give the following question some serious consideration. Have any of you guys ever spent the night in a place where you’re not the top of the food chain? I'm referring to grizzly bear country. To sleep in the mountains with an animal such as a grizzly makes you think. Leave your kill to long or sleep with your food and you might become the hunted. You may say oh that guys an idiot for sleeping with those bears, but am I? Try it and you will never be the same.

Finalshot

 

[Finalshot]

Here's the letter I sent to the adminstration, the "leaders" of the key committees on the hill, and the State of Montana.

FYI -

Hello, my name is Tony Bynum. I live just north of Bynum, Montana. The area to the west of Bynum, MT is locally known as the “Front” or the “mountains.” I respectfully request that you do everything in your power to keep the Front and the Badger-Two Medicine safe from the pressures of extractive development. These areas are much to valuable to the State and the Nation to let the short-term demand for natural resources like oil, gas, and other minerals over rule the long-term value of a clean, healthy vibrant Front Range. Drilling will greatly impact the area for the long-term. I would point to Pincher Creek, just north accross the border, for an example of what will happen to our Front if you allow it to be opened for exploration and extraction. Please do not let anyone drill, extract, build roads, or in any way cause long-term damage to the Front Range or the Badger-Two Medicine.

As your constituent I believe it’s important for you to hear the thoughts of one avid outdoor user from Montana. I utilize the Front Range and the Badger-Two Medicine for hiking, packing, and hunting. I believe it is the last best place in the lower 48 states – it’s the reason I live where I live. I spend thousands of dollars to live and recreate along the Front. I know of many other’s who do the same. One guy I met yesterday while hunting along the Front spends about $15,000 per year in Montana to hunt, he’s from the Mid-West. As you know, there are many others just like him. Allow the front to be destroyed by the short-term demands of an out-of-touch administration and you will no longer have people spending money to come here. After the oil and gas are played out, in a few years, you will have a spoiled Front Range, just like many other last-best-places have become.

The best and wisest use of the Front is as a home for our wildlife (wildlife cant pick up and move to another state or location like you or I) and a place for people to go and spend time. The Front is the winter-grounds and transition zone vital to the survival of still intact elk, deer, and sheep herds as well as a number of grizzlies, cougars, and wolves. If you think there are problems with predator – human encounters today, imagine what will happen if you allow drilling and exploration in their home. Those animals will be forced out onto the plains (their traditional home). They will prey on our livestock and our children. Noise and disturbance are big deals to bears; they don’t like to be bothered. If they are pushed out of the front, they will come to town and they won’t be happy when they get shot!

Thank you for your consideration. Represent the people of the great state of Montana by protecting the Front. I am a conservative person in the old sense of the word. Back when Roosevelt removed many areas of the west from exploitation or extraction. This issue is so important to me that I will cast my vote during all up coming elections for the candidate(s) and the party that are willing to fight for complete protection of the Front Range.

Thank you again,

Sincerely,

Tony Bynum

 

[Oak]

That should be about the last post on this topic. How can it be said any better? Good posts, Finalshot.

Oak

 

[The Hedgehog]

It would be really tragic to see this area littered with roads and holes.

I spend time hunting in the front area each fall and I definately agree that this will destroy a real jewel.

 

[1_pointer]

Tony- You post illustrating your philosophy of NR management mirrors my own. Welcome aboard and PLEASE hang around as I value your input on the issues discussed here. Use and misuse are not the same. We can do better than what we are currently doing, but the outlook is not all bleak. I found your analogy of the 70mph refreshing as the same thing came out about the drilling of ANWR. More oil could be saved by upping the efficiency standards of SUVs alone than is thought to be under ANWR. Great post and thanks.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Excellent post Finalshot! So I take it you won't be voting for Bush?

 

[BHR]

Finalshot,

Thanks for your well thought out response. Your ideas are good at heart, but are not realistic. You can't mandate everyone to drive at 55 or 65 and expect everyone to abide by it, be honest. You can't mandate people to buy cars that get X miles to the gallon. Some people live in trailer homes with vitually no insulation. Should we force them to live in a "better" home or cut off their energy supply?

Only one of you guy's have answered this question, E. G.. This is an important question you need to answer REALISTICALLY if you want to to stop the drilling on the Front. Oak, why don't you give it a try since you think the debate is over. Should be an easy one right?

"Gas shortages have been a long time coming, it hasn't happened over night. There are less and less places socially aceptable to drill, with more and more demand every year. Where do you propose we drill for natural gas that is acceptable?"

Paul

 

[tmsander]

I'm all for conservation, but feel it is only a temporary mitigation of a symptom, rather than a solution to the cause. Conservation efforts only delay the inevitable.

New energy technologies are required. Focusing only on fighting drilling and exploration here or there is wasting time.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Paul, I've got the solution...let's tax gas up to about $4/gallon. That is the only way to encourage people to conserve. Just think how popular buses, trains, and car pooling would become! The biggest waste of energy has got to be all the cars going down the road with only carrying one person. Gasoline is just too cheap. That's why SUV's are so popular. Double or triple the price of gas and we'll see how that changes! What do you think?

 

[BHR]

W. H.,

Good idea, let's do it. Just don't expect to find a decent paying job ever again. Should we tax natural gas and propane the same way as well? Should cut down on those 10,000 square foot shacks being built in places like Sun Valley? Nah- maybe we should tax people progressively for these goods based on how much money they earn? You think?

Buzz,

You have yet to answer my question reguarding the black horned Alberta sheep. Does it bother you that a reclaimed coal mine can be turned into great sheep habitat?

And lets elaborate on the Stillwater mine. It is the only reserves in the U. S. containing Platinum and Palladium, and they are used to make catylitic convertors for cars as mandated by the Federal Government. Which do I feel is more important? The welfare of a few sheep in one herd in Montana, or good jobs for lots of people in this country and cleaner air to breath. As much as I like wild sheep, I'd be lying if I told you the sheep are more important. There are other factors involved as well in the decline of those sheep and my time is better spent focusing on those factors.

Paul