BLM Planning 2.0 Repealed - Page 2 - Utah Wildlife Network

» Site Navigation
» Home
»
 > Search
 > FAQ
» Stats
Members: 11,649
Threads: 57,225
Posts: 596,505
Welcome to our newest member, jarhead1229
Like Tree18Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-29-2017, 02:25 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bountiful, UT
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LostLouisianian View Post

Public lands can be efficiently and effectively managed for multiple uses at the same time. I agree without question.

There is no reason that small parcels of public land cannot be used for mining and oil without having the rest set aside. Take for example ANWAR....the government wanted to allow drilling on less than 1/10 of 1 percent and the liberals refused. How ridiculous is that. Liberals not satisfied with keeping 99.9+% drilling free...just plain ignorant.I also can understand this concern. It's a valid complaint that some want absolutely no extraction. I'm equally opposed to either extreme. I'm not well-informed enough about the specifics of the ANWR drilling proposition to have formulated an opinion either way there.

Thanks for the comments. I think it's reasonable to be frustrated by the "zero extraction" approach taken by the other side of this issue as well.

I actually think there is value in allowing those people to have a voice even if I disagree with the practicality of their mindset in the world we live in. I also think there is a tangible value to the extraction industries and their opinion even if I question their ability to minimize impact on the landscape.

If only both sides were more willing to truly compromise and arrive at what would be the most beneficial and efficient use of public lands.

I guess I am just concerned that regulations allowing for input from all sides as to when, where, and by what method drilling is appropriate/beneficial have now been repealed. That means that the status quo persists for now.

The status quo of management practices has been used as a scapegoat that has led us to the Public Land conflict and fuels the fire of Land Transfer advocacy. I would have liked to see reasonable changes made to the land planning rule or a reasonable alternative presented before simply signing the dotted line and doing away with the rule altogether.
Kwalk3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-29-2017, 02:29 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,698
Default

I read this article today over the lunch break. It discusses more about what I was yacking about yesterday in my post above.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...coals-decline/


Basically, regarding the discussion at hand and TPL, it reinforces the following assertions.

1. The Trump administration itself is cutting away real or perceived restrictions to drilling and mining. Zinke is just a rubber stamp at this point unless he wanted to be canned.

2. Loosening of restrictions on drilling and mining by the Trump administration will not automatically mean more extraction activity unless markets open up for the product. For coal at least, it seems unlikely in the near future.

3. Due to low demand, the net environmental effect (and thus effects on hunting and fishing) of such action could actually be less than during much of the Obama administration where at least oil prices were higher and drilling was more profitable.

4. Rural county commissioners that want to bet their communities economic futures on mining jobs in lands confiscated from the Feds are in for a very rude awakening. (Looking at you, Garfield county and your schemes to mine that coal on the current GSENM.)
Kwalk3 likes this.
Catherder is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-29-2017, 03:09 PM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bountiful, UT
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherder View Post
I read this article today over the lunch break. It discusses more about what I was yacking about yesterday in my post above.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...coals-decline/


Basically, regarding the discussion at hand and TPL, it reinforces the following assertions.

1. The Trump administration itself is cutting away real or perceived restrictions to drilling and mining. Zinke is just a rubber stamp at this point unless he wanted to be canned. I agree. I would just like to see the substantive reasoning behind cutting away the restrictions besides "Obama did it." I'm not even saying some of the restrictions implemented by Obama couldn't have been over the top. I also acknowledge that today's political climate doesn't require much more than emotion and "Obama did it" for one to feel a change was justified.

2. Loosening of restrictions on drilling and mining by the Trump administration will not automatically mean more extraction activity unless markets open up for the product. For coal at least, it seems unlikely in the near future. Agree as well. This is partly why I think the rhetoric employed by the President's administration regarding increasing coal production is silly and the loosening of regulations seems to do little more than postpone the inevitable. Politically, I understand this reasoning. He's fulfilling a campaign promise, at least in word.

3. Due to low demand, the net environmental effect (and thus effects on hunting and fishing) of such action could actually be less than during much of the Obama administration where at least oil prices were higher and drilling was more profitable. I hope this remains true. The tough thing about the market is that it isn't always entirely predictable. There are a variety of exogenous variables that may determine the price of oil in the future. It is because of the uncertainty of the future price of oil that I would like to err more on the side of protection of landscapes instead of chasing volatile markets and hoping for long term economic prosperity.

4. Rural county commissioners that want to bet their communities economic futures on mining jobs in lands confiscated from the Feds are in for a very rude awakening. (Looking at you, Garfield county and your schemes to mine that coal on the current GSENM.)True statement.I think a large portion of this whole argument is short-sighted in respect to jobs and extraction. I would love to see some of the county commissioners embrace recreation on public lands as a potentially more sustainable, less volatile economic driver towards long term viability of the rural communities.
I think the economic perspective is an important one to be reminded of here. These discussions can often be overtaken by team sport politics and emotion instead of analyzing the likely real effects of a policy change. I'm guilty of letting my emotions cause me to be hyperbolic at times and overstating the effect of something I disagree with. The sky isn't falling tomorrow....but maybe Saturday.
Kwalk3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-30-2017, 10:18 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,087
Default

I really don't want to hear more bellyaching about how the "locals" aren't represented in Federal Land decisions when "they" (county commissions, legislature) seem to be on the side pushing to not fix that system. It's going to be the same thing as with healthcare- refuse to incrementally improve the current system so that you can continue to complain how broken things are in the hopes of bringing about some radical change. Conservative my A$$.
Trooper is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-30-2017, 10:19 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,342
Default

When you think about local control, picture Mike Noel. I much prefer 2.0.
#1DEER 1-I likes this.
__________________
The value of any trophy from the field depends not on its size
but on the magnitude of the effort expended in its pursuit. Aldo Leupold
paddler is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-30-2017, 11:36 PM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddler View Post
When you think about local control, picture Mike Noel. I much prefer 2.0.
When you think about 2.0; picture a Dirtbag Do Gooder wearing BLM (not the govt agency) shirt, stopping work on a pipeline that went through full government approval process.

BLM (the govt agency) has ever excluded input from any group. Problem is the Do Gooders expect everything to be on their terms. Multiple use isn't a term they embrace.

Last edited by OriginalOscar; 03-30-2017 at 11:39 PM.
OriginalOscar is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-31-2017, 12:06 AM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bountiful, UT
Posts: 1,011
Default

Is it possible to refer to someone who may not align with you politically less condescendingly?

Calling others do-gooders does nothing to further the conversation. There are legitimate gripes on both sides, but the rhetoric hides what could otherwise be a substantive detailing of your arguments supporting the repeal of 2.0 as opposed to a strictly partisan/emotional case.

I agree some of the other users of public land may have unrealistic/impractical expectations or desires as far as public land management is concerned.

There are also those on the opposite end that will stop nothing short of the federal government ceasing management and ownership of every last acre.

Compromise isn't in either group's vocabulary.

That's what concerns me as a sportsman. Energy isnt going to fight for us. Neither is the opposite end of the spectrum. We need to ensure that we have a seat at the table for planning decisions that may directly impact us as sportsmen.

I personally don't see how repealing 2.0 increases our ability to give input in the planning process.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

Last edited by Kwalk3; 03-31-2017 at 12:09 AM.
Kwalk3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-31-2017, 12:08 AM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
#1DEER 1-I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalOscar View Post
When you think about 2.0; picture a Dirtbag Do Gooder wearing BLM (not the govt agency) shirt, stopping work on a pipeline that went through full government approval process.

BLM (the govt agency) has ever excluded input from any group. Problem is the Do Gooders expect everything to be on their terms. Multiple use isn't a term they embrace.
OO, as you said it yourself, the pipeline went through the process. 2.0 is the process(not now), which gave the public more input to craft managment of public lands. 2.0 didn't undo the multiple use mandate public lands are managed under, it just gave more power to the PUBLIC in public lands. Here's my problem, you have one side that wants hands off and one side that has decided environmental protection and consideration of wildlife, clean air, and clean water are just terms that stand in the way of profit. Guess what wildlife habitat, clean air, and clean water are vitally important and should be protected even when it puts us at an inconvenience of development and profit at times. There are things worth more than money, and for me, I would rather the public gets to say how our public lands are managed (even at times they don't support my ideals) than profiteers who pay tiny fees and file for bankruptcy when it's time to clean up their mess. I'm absolutely sick of this old tune of no public input when those same people block public input from truly being considered. If the system is broke as they say it is, then quite taking us back to that system and let's start moving in a different direction. Instead the same people who complain about current land managment just erased a new approach at managment. Honestly, I don't want to hear it anymore. If you want managment to improve you can't do what you've always done and expect different results. Repealing 2.0 was nothing more than silencing people they didn't want to hear from.

In the end neither side is correct. Progress is inevitable, and the hands off folks have to far fetched of an idea of land managment. However, the other side that believes profits are more important than clean air, clean water, land protection, and wildlife habitat are also just as wrong. That's why hearing from all sides as best as possible and finding the middle ground is usually the best place to land.
stillhuntin likes this.
__________________
Keep Public lands, in public hands. Sign the petition:
https://secure3.convio.net/trcp/site...rAction&id=415
Join BHA: http://www.backcountryhunters.org

Last edited by #1DEER 1-I; 03-31-2017 at 12:18 AM.
#1DEER 1-I is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-31-2017, 07:07 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwalk3 View Post
I agree some of the other users of public land may have unrealistic/impractical expectations or desires as far as public land management is concerned. Good thinking

There are also those on the opposite end that will stop nothing short of the federal government ceasing management and ownership of every last acre. Good thinking

I personally don't see how repealing 2.0 increases our ability to give input in the planning process. Sportsman groups; DU, RMEF, SFW (yes give them props), TU, etc, etc have been involved for decades. 2.0 was not needed.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Yep
OriginalOscar is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-31-2017, 07:44 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,342
Default

I think 2.0 was a good thing. Any time you involve more stakeholders in the process of deciding how to administer our public lands, you're heading in the right direction. As we have seen, the current administration is hell bent on rolling back regulations on industry and the environment put in place by the previous, enlightened administration. No good will come of it.
__________________
The value of any trophy from the field depends not on its size
but on the magnitude of the effort expended in its pursuit. Aldo Leupold
paddler is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Smilies
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Utah Wildlife Network forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BLM planning 2.0 #1DEER 1-I The great outdoors 1 02-08-2017 04:30 PM
BLM Packfish Everything else 2 12-31-2015 11:37 AM
The BLM and fires? #1DEER 1-I Big game 19 06-26-2012 05:35 PM
Are you interested in becoming a BLM Advisor? Bax* The great outdoors 0 12-18-2011 03:02 PM
Utah BLM land help HJB Big game 20 08-08-2009 03:06 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.