Time for Land Tawney to step down?

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
162
Is it time for Land Tawney to leave.......

Handful of thoughtful comments, then boom, and now it's flat earth vs science purists.

Can't imagine why I would think touching this subject as a "public lands in public hands" group is not just counter productive, but suicidal for the mission.


You guys get played.

If you dare think a dem could be ok the abortion or guns dog whistle gets blown and the right gets back in formation(never pointing out that abortion is still legal decades later and that Trump is the only recent gun grabber)

The dems if Gawd forbid get out of line then the climate change dog whistle is blown and back in line you go(never askibg why al Gore and pelosi live in mansions and fly private jets).

You get played.

And that is exactly why the "green decoy" crap is used, and exactly why Tawney needs to be replaced.

It's called focus. Good leaders maintain it. Chatty ones don't.

I didn't ask if BHA should go away. I asked if it's time for a change at the top.

The 3 pages of dudes off in the jungle arguing climate change, ANSWER THE QUESTION, as to why touching the subject as a public lands org is destructive to the mission.

What's next? Abortion?

Time for new leadership that can focus on the task at hand.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,001
Location
Aurora, CO
the climate has always been changing. so what??
True, although historic changes have been much less dramatic, i.e. 2 degree increase over 5,000 years not in 5 years.

To your point, "so what", well why do we manage elk and deer, why not just shoot as many as we feel like, why manage predators? We do these things to mitigate dramatic change from year to year, to maintain consistency so that it's easier for us to plan and live our lives. Sure humans will not go extinct in the next 100 years due to climate change, but you may lose your home to sea level rise or floods and crops may be decimated by droughts, snow, floods, etc. Those of us with the least means are going to be those most effected.

The conversation get's muddled by the massive amount of partisanship going on right now, this hasn't been and shouldn't be a my team your team conversation.

(Don't make me post that damn Nixon state of the union for a 5th time, republicans were the party of sportsmen and championed environmental protections not wanting to f-up the woods is not a goal owned by the Democrats)

The demand for energy goes up every year, there is plenty of market share for wind, solar, O&G, and coal. There is nothing wrong with adding new jobs to our economy.

The population of the world is also increasing, we voted and Ben Lamb is not going to get the infinity stones, therefore we need to conserve and protect our wild places which in my mind means thinking critically every time we build new energy infrastructure on public lands.
 

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
162
True, although historic changes have been much less dramatic, i.e. 2 degree increase over 5,000 years not in 5 years.

To your point, "so what", well why do we manage elk and deer, why not just shoot as many as we feel like, why manage predators? We do these things to mitigate dramatic change from year to year, to maintain consistency so that it's easier for us to plan and live our lives. Sure humans will not go extinct in the next 100 years due to climate change, but you may lose your home to sea level rise or floods and crops may be decimated by droughts, snow, floods, etc. Those of us with the least means are going to be those most effected.

The conversation get's muddled by the massive amount of partisanship going on right now, this hasn't been and shouldn't be a my team your team conversation.

(Don't make me post that damn Nixon state of the union for a 5th time, republicans were the party of sportsmen and championed environmental protections not wanting to f-up the woods is not a goal owned by the Democrats)

The demand for energy goes up every year, there is plenty of market share for wind, solar, O&G, and coal. There is nothing wrong with adding new jobs to our economy.

The population of the world is also increasing, we voted and Ben Lamb is not going to get the infinity stones, therefore we need to conserve and protect our wild places which in my mind means thinking critically every time we build new energy infrastructure on public lands.

Thank you.

At one time the train was revolutionizing travel. We gave a gazillion acres to the railroads. Now, we are pulling up tracks.

I am hard pressed to believe that with the amount of rooftops just in government buildings, let alone private, that there is a need for a single public acre to be cemented in for solar pads, or wind.

Rinella talked about the land not needing to justify its existence by creating revenue.

But. For arguments sake, IF "we" need 100 acres for a windmill, why not trade it for 100 acres somewhere else? There are thousands and thousands of acres for sale right now on the edges of public land.

IF we conceed the need for energy, thus the need to use energy producing public land, then let's set the price at an acre for an acre. Why is it

"At the discretion of the secretary"?

Let the energy producers buy state trust land, and trade it for "productive land".
The state's get paid, energy gets produced, the public doesn't loose any land.

What BHA did was sell out to a favored energy source for a non existent cost decided by a antagonistic secretary.

Or in other words like I told Land, this bill is like a unicorn telling a fairy tale about Bigfoot. Sure sounds good, but is BS from the start.

What? An actual idea or solution without abortion, guns, or climate change? Huh, if only there was a group that was interested in actual ideas and solutions. Perhaps one interested in keeping public land in public hands.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,001
Location
Aurora, CO
I am hard pressed to believe that with the amount of rooftops just in government buildings, let alone private, that there is a need for a single public acre to be cemented in for solar pads, or wind.
At the heart of this the fact that government leases are not competitive.

For instance oil might have to be $55 a barrel to make money on a private lease but only $48 on BLM. Same is true for renewable energy.

Seems like a win-win for BHA to advocate for extremely high federal and state leases. Simply upping the cost would stop development in fringe basins like the Uinta and Powder for oil and gas, which BHA wants, and would drive green energy producers to seek solutions with private owners.
 

grizzly_

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
641
Yes, Land Tawney needs to go. He simply isn't qualified to run BHA. I don't know how many of you have spoken to Land and other employees of National, but they're not impressive people. They may be good friends and passionate sportsmen, but it takes more than that. I liken it to the small business owner that has a great idea and grows the company but eventually realizes he needs to bring in a professional CEO to run the business he founded. It's time for a change.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
10,977
Location
Laramie, WY
I think that renewables need a critical look and I don't believe they have been given that by a lot of folks.

The things that I don't like in regard to wind farms and solar on public lands are:

1. The PTC's that are so lucrative that wind energy companies PAY utility companies to take their power.
2. Wind and Solar farms are just as, if not more disruptive to migration corridors as oil and gas.
3. The footprint on both is massive, and its not just in relation to the farms themselves, its also the transmission lines, associated roads, etc.
4. No plan for what happens long term if the farms are decommissioned.
5. They both kill a lot birds.
6. Unlike oil and gas, any public lands that are within the boundaries of the wind or solar areas are 100% off limits to hunting and other multiple use activities. Sure, a rancher may be able to graze cows there, but what about ANY sort of recreation? Its all gone. Even though it may not be the best quality, I can still hunt right in the middle of oil and gas development for the most part.

There just isn't much to like with renewable energy on public lands, its a taking of multiple use, and essentially converting public lands to a single use/private ownership deal. Not what I consider the most judicious use of our public lands for the benefit of future generations for the longest time...with equal consideration being given to all uses. Its picking one "winner" and creating a shit ton of losers...wildlife, habitat, migration corridors, recreation, etc.

As far as the angle that there will at least be some money put into a pot to be split by the states producing the power and giving up public lands? Not worth it. The language of the bill is crap, it gives discretion to politicians to decide how to dole out the money. Its just awesome that I give up migration corridors, areas to hunt, fish, bike, hike, bird watch, so that the revenue generated can go to another state to "help" their wildlife. Sorry CA, OR, ID, but if I give up recreation on my public lands in Wyoming to wind and solar, the revenue generated here, should stay here. The bill in question doesn't specify how the money will be divided.

Too many downsides and not enough upside for me to support this legislation at this time.
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
5,949
Location
Bitterroot Valley
the climates of the earth have been changing every since the earth was created. yes, created. some how life has muddled on. it will remain so. sure some species will go extinct ,some won't .when one goes extinct something will fill the void . it has always been so. that won't change regardless of what men think.
Good thing that we had people at the turn of the century that didn't hold this type of attitude. There would be no "Hunt Talk" but rather something less stimulating like "Bug Collecters" talk. Nothing else might be left.
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,690
Location
Bozeman, MT
billionaires and oil companies
wingnuts

Fact of the matter is money talks, investors said climate change is an important issue and needs to be taken into account by those in the energy industry.

@kmott the ship has sailed
That's good in the sense that the first step to solving a problem is acknowledging there is one, but it's their end product that's the problem.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,001
Location
Aurora, CO
That's good in the sense that the first step to solving a problem is acknowledging there is one, but it's their end product that's the problem.
The right needs to get back on the climate boat, the left needs to acknowledge that 80% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels, that demand is increasing, and the decline curves of Oil and Gas wells are much steeper than the public realizes.

We have to attack the problem from both ends, that means developing renewable but also drilling new wells. Likely both of these activities will be done by the same companies with their incredible economies of scale.
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,912
Location
Montana
Haha! "Their end product" = You.
The feuding... This thread is about BHA leadership direction and here we are the MAIN topic flips into yet another debate over Climate Change...

Prime example why the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers are more and more crediting the, "green decoy" label that's shadow is darkening more and more over what many value, "Public Lands in Public Hands".
 

Bambistew

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
5,441
Location
Chugiak, AK
I'm all for renewable energy, especially wind and solar It means more copper mining. But I'm sure some will say we'll just get it from recycled copper or from another country. It takes about 10,000lbs of copper per MW for both. Most all the copper deposits in the US are on public lands. How does that fit in with the BHA crowd?
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,690
Location
Bozeman, MT
I'm all for renewable energy, especially wind and solar It means more copper mining. But I'm sure some will say we'll just get it from recycled copper or from another country. It takes about 10,000lbs of copper per MW for both. Most all the copper deposits in the US are on public lands. How does that fit in with the BHA crowd?
I didn't know this. It's apparently for wind power; solar uses less. However, that number is 0.000025% of the 37 billion pound annual copper production so I recommend the BHA crowd give zero f**ks.
 
Top