Time for Land Tawney to step down?

Trial153

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
1,131
Location
New York
I did a 180 on this issue. Like the OP my first reaction is this is and should be out of the BHA wheelhouse. However my pragmatism tends pull me back inline, well most times. The fact is if you not at the table your on the menu. This is a table that BHA and quite frankly some other orgs need to be at.
 
Last edited:

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,202
Location
Aurora, CO
I did a 180 on this issue. Like the OP my first reaction is this is and should be out of the BHA wheelhouse. However my pragmatism tends pull me back inline, well most times. The fact is if you not at the table your on the menu. This is a table that BHA and quite frankly some other orgs need to be at.
Shouldn't the goal of BHA be to advocate for sportsmen, to ask those who wrote the bill to make changes before we will support the bill?

I have nothing against legislation that promotes energy, but it shouldn't promote development to the detriment of the organizations goals.

1573486775974.png

"facilitate the development of consistent land-use policies, protect migratory corridors and improve habitat health"

I have a hard time balancing that with:

1573486878016.png

Wind solar and geo, have a huge footprint relative to their production capacities. Do we want a bill that says the BLM and USFS "shall seek to issue"... of not less than 25 gigawatts" why not "shall seek to issue permits on lands deemed by the BLM as being preferred locations for renewable projects, provide those lands are found not to have meaningful impacts on at risk species, and do not restrict or interfere with current public use of lands.

I don't write bills, but I think you get what I'm driving at.

Also this language? WTF So let's get this straight if you build a solar farm, your rate gets locked in on day 1 and cant be raised? So for instance 100 years from now you will be charged the same rate + inflation. This kinda crap is already all over the OG industry, federal energy development is not competitive with the private market.

If Joe farmer is going to get $90,000 per padsite as part of his SUA + $3,000 an acre bonus + 25% royalty, than we as public land owners should be getting the exact same rate if not higher. The same should be said for renewable. If you want to build a solar grid on public lands then you should be paying at least what you would be charged to build on private.

I fundamentally disagree with our current policy of incentivising private companies to develop on public land.

1573487345856.png


Finally meateater posted this clip on instagram taking about holding energy developers on public lands responsible for their messes. I'm 100% behind this, therefore I want to see language in any renewable bill that dictates cleanup costs. All OG companies are required to plug any non-producing/abandoned well they own, we typically "value" plugging liabilities at $50,000 per well. So for example if one OG company buys another know they will be assuming the plugging liabilities of that companies wells, so the value of the well is.... Value = (production*commodity rate - cost of production)(life of well) - $50,000. Meaning that if you have a crap well that is still producing you might assign it negative value, because you won't get enough production out of it to cover plugging costs.

Where is the parity with renewables, is there language that provides for panels and turbines to be disposed of carefully.

I grew up in Eagle, CO there is a super fund site about 30 min away in minturn. I've seen what happens with industries go bust and leave their crap lying around. As of yet we don't know the effect of 1000s of acres of rotting solar panels.

The whole point is that this isn't about virtue signalling saving the world, these things impact communities, lets think critically about them. If projects make sense build them.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,659
Location
Wenatchee
Shouldn't the goal of BHA be to advocate for sportsmen, to ask those who wrote the bill to make changes before we will support the bill?

I have nothing against legislation that promotes energy, but it shouldn't promote development to the detriment of the organizations goals.

View attachment 119413

"facilitate the development of consistent land-use policies, protect migratory corridors and improve habitat health"

I have a hard time balancing that with:

View attachment 119414

Wind solar and geo, have a huge footprint relative to their production capacities. Do we want a bill that says the BLM and USFS "shall seek to issue"... of not less than 25 gigawatts" why not "shall seek to issue permits on lands deemed by the BLM as being preferred locations for renewable projects, provide those lands are found not to have meaningful impacts on at risk species, and do not restrict or interfere with current public use of lands.

I don't write bills, but I think you get what I'm driving at.

Also this language? WTF So let's get this straight if you build a solar farm, your rate gets locked in on day 1 and cant be raised? So for instance 100 years from now you will be charged the same rate + inflation. This kinda crap is already all over the OG industry, federal energy development is not competitive with the private market.

If Joe farmer is going to get $90,000 per padsite as part of his SUA + $3,000 an acre bonus + 25% royalty, than we as public land owners should be getting the exact same rate if not higher. The same should be said for renewable. If you want to build a solar grid on public lands then you should be paying at least what you would be charged to build on private.

I fundamentally disagree with our current policy of incentivising private companies to develop on public land.

View attachment 119416


Finally meateater posted this clip on instagram taking about holding energy developers on public lands responsible for their messes. I'm 100% behind this, therefore I want to see language in any renewable bill that dictates cleanup costs. All OG companies are required to plug any non-producing/abandoned well they own, we typically "value" plugging liabilities at $50,000 per well. So for example if one OG company buys another know they will be assuming the plugging liabilities of that companies wells, so the value of the well is.... Value = (production*commodity rate - cost of production)(life of well) - $50,000. Meaning that if you have a crap well that is still producing you might assign it negative value, because you won't get enough production out of it to cover plugging costs.

Where is the parity with renewables, is there language that provides for panels and turbines to be disposed of carefully.

I grew up in Eagle, CO there is a super fund site about 30 min away in minturn. I've seen what happens with industries go bust and leave their crap lying around. As of yet we don't know the effect of 1000s of acres of rotting solar panels.

The whole point is that this isn't about virtue signalling saving the world, these things impact communities, lets think critically about them. If projects make sense build them.
Where would one stand if climate change was going to ruin cold water reliant fisheries for the (BH)Anglers but the renewable energy projects would ruin the migration routes of ungulates pursued by the (B)Hunters (A)? It seems to me that BHA has come to represent mostly hunters, while the anglers get the shaft. It's easy to pick which you think is more important but if you're passion is not antelope on the prairie or bugling bulls in the junipers, but is instead chasing steelhead on the Klickitat, a low elevation river that is cooled by glacial melt, glaciers that will vanish in my life, then do you weight the scales differently?
 

Trial153

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
1,131
Location
New York
Shouldn't the goal of BHA be to advocate for sportsmen, to ask those who wrote the bill to make changes before we will support the bill?

I don't write bills, but I think you get what I'm driving at.

agree and none of these changes can take place if you leave the table foregoing your stake. Both sides of the energy lobby have their hooks in our government and quite frankly until our hooks are bigger then their hooks the only thing we can do is hope mitigate damage on this issue.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,202
Location
Aurora, CO
Where would one stand if climate change was going to ruin cold water reliant fisheries for the (BH)Anglers but the renewable energy projects would ruin the migration routes of ungulates pursued by the (B)Hunters (A)? It seems to me that BHA has come to represent mostly hunters, while the anglers get the shaft. It's easy to pick which you think is more important but if you're passion is not antelope on the prairie or bugling bulls in the junipers, but is instead chasing steelhead on the Klickitat, a low elevation river that is cooled by glacial melt, glaciers that will vanish in my life, then do you weight the scales differently?
Where would BHA stand on building a dam on said river, hydro is considered a "green" renewable. The dam would f- the fishery.

That's more the stance I'm taking, we should develop green energy, but learn from our mistakes and do so carefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLS

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
11,031
Location
Laramie, WY
Where would one stand if climate change was going to ruin cold water reliant fisheries for the (BH)Anglers but the renewable energy projects would ruin the migration routes of ungulates pursued by the (B)Hunters (A)? It seems to me that BHA has come to represent mostly hunters, while the anglers get the shaft. It's easy to pick which you think is more important but if you're passion is not antelope on the prairie or bugling bulls in the junipers, but is instead chasing steelhead on the Klickitat, a low elevation river that is cooled by glacial melt, glaciers that will vanish in my life, then do you weight the scales differently?
That's a great point/question...and like most issues regarding climate change, etc. a good answer is often pretty tough to come by.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,202
Location
Aurora, CO
agree and none of these changes can take place if you leave the table foregoing your stake. Both sides of the energy lobby have their hooks in our government and quite frankly until our hooks are bigger then their hooks the only thing we can do is hope mitigate damage on this issue.
I'm not sure how being a "yes man" gets you a seat at the table? I'm not oppose to BHA supporting a green energy bill, I'm just opposed to that bill.

Also I question why the bill is mostly (almost entirely) sponsored by members of the "land transfer" caucus.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,659
Location
Wenatchee
Where would BHA stand on building a dam on said river, hydro is considered a "green" renewable. The dam would f- the fishery.

That's more the stance I'm taking, we should develop green energy, but learn from our mistakes and do so carefully.
Not if you put the dam above a natural fish barrier. MANY of the tributary rivers here in the NW that have large run-of-the-river dams also have natural fish passage barriers. The Klick has a dam but the idiots that built it didn't build it big enough to produce any real power so in reality you're getting all the impacts without any of the benefits. We as a county could build hundreds if not thousands of high altitude small head dams, above the anadromous fish zone, provide the flood water mitigation that snow and glaciers are currently providing and produce a ton of power.
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,202
Location
Aurora, CO
Not if you put the dam above a natural fish barrier. MANY of the tributary rivers here in the NW that have large run-of-the-river dams also have natural fish passage barriers. The Klick has a dam but the idiots that built it didn't build it big enough to produce any real power so in reality you're getting all the impacts without any of the benefits. We as a county could build hundreds if not thousands of high altitude small head dams, above the anadromous fish zone, provide the flood water mitigation that snow and glaciers are currently providing and produce a ton of power.
Exactly, I just want to see the equivalent done with all energy types.
 

88man

Active member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
734
Location
Pa
where does the money come from> what percentage of BHA revenue is from membership dues and assessments? How much from donor groups/corps?? How do the donor groups/corps make their revenue?? There is alot of money to be made going green.
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
6,000
Location
Montana
Forestry. Public land timber sales ---> Logging / carpentry, etc jobs---> from paper to houses. Renewable resource. In excess of 45 bil
 

wllm1313

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
5,202
Location
Aurora, CO
Compared to what? Conventional O&G are some of the largest corporations on the planet.
Show me a "green" company with 45 bill in profit.
Scale yes, although the market is contracting... tons of bankruptcy recently in the industry and huge paper loss for the majors.

It's tough to find a good comparison because lots of OG companies are adding "green" into their portfolio, Exxon kinda works as an example as it's not as much as others.
1573496230182.png

There isn't a great "green" comparison as there isn't a massive public green company... but Siemens does a lot of green energy.

Siemens is trending up as Exxon trends down.
1573496249555.png
 

88man

Active member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
734
Location
Pa
Compared to what? Conventional O&G are some of the largest corporations on the planet.
View attachment 119437

Show me a "green" company with 45 bill in profit.
The ROI trajectory is in the green industry when it gets going again or when the dems get in power, tons of entry points for lots of businesses and consultants. Its about growth, give it time.
 

neffa3

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,659
Location
Wenatchee
Forestry. Public land timber sales ---> Logging / carpentry, etc jobs---> from paper to houses. Renewable resource. In excess of 45 bil
Company not sector! Geez. I mean if we're going sector LED light bulbs are probably a multi billion dollar industry too. Besides the majority of your paper and houses are made with private timber. We have to pay people to harvest public lands in WA under the Fire Wise mantra.
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
6,000
Location
Montana
Eek... :) No harm, no foul - Neffa. Weyerhaeuser? 7.5 billion for fy 2019. Granted it's not 45 bil… speaking of U.S. and not Saudi, UAE, etc.. , 7.5 bil is a pretty good value for U.S... It's pretty darn unfortunate we are not harvesting near the renewable resource from our public lands. According to the USFS amongst others, thinning adds value to our public land's flora / fauna.

edit added:
We are speaking about the whole "Climate Change" effect... right? Being that this seems to be a focal point of BHA leadership. Right? The topic?

Thinning, prescribed fires, and managing naturally caused wildfires to achieve natural resource management objectives can help prevent extreme wildfires with minimal impacts to air quality while smoke from extreme wildfires may pose significant risks to public health and safety.

According to : https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/factsheets/csdWildfiresFIREX.pdf

1573501013979.png
 
Last edited:

hossblur

Active member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
165
agree and none of these changes can take place if you leave the table foregoing your stake. Both sides of the energy lobby have their hooks in our government and quite frankly until our hooks are bigger then their hooks the only thing we can do is hope mitigate damage on this issue.

"Sweetheart, my truck was parked at the whorehouse because my buddy was there and God knows that, if I wasn't there he wouldn't control himself" A seat at the table ain't great if its the wrong table.

One would have to not read BHA own publications to not know this was 100% about virtue signaling.

Did I miss hydroelectric development? Algal fuel? Biodiesel?

In a pretend world sure, "something is better than nothing".

But Land Tawney ain't pretend. He ain't some dude no one listened to or heard. He says what he believes. And I respect the he'll out of guys who do.

BUT. His BELIEF is the issue.

Doubt it? Put on your Public Land Owner T shirt and BHA hat and wander into a miners bar. Or oil drillers bar. Wander into a cattlemens association meeting. Or wool growers. See just how long you last.

And those folks actually hunt. They fish. They go into the backcountry. And Tawney takes great joy in slapping them every chance he gets.

I don't know Tawney. I believe 100% he is passionate. I believe 100% he's not a green decoy.

But so what? The coalition he wants to create will need the miners, oil men and ranchers to join in. And they won't when he very publically makes them his target. And they won't when they see sweetheart deals for his favorite energy producers while he campaigns against others.

You either have to believe every other org other thanBHA, TU and TRCP where to slow,to dumb, or not powerful enough to push this bill through, or THEY ARE RIGHT to stay out of the black hole of climate change policy. It can't be both.

I wonder. Do you think Land will call his sister John Muir at Thanksgiving because DU didn't sign on?
 
Top