BLM Planning 2.0 Repealed - Utah Wildlife Network

» Site Navigation
» Home
»
 > Search
 > FAQ
» Stats
Members: 11,561
Threads: 56,878
Posts: 591,230
Welcome to our newest member, SportEAR
Like Tree18Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-28-2017, 11:00 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bountiful, UT
Posts: 926
Default BLM Planning 2.0 Repealed

http://www.hcn.org/articles/in-lates...g-and-ranching

This article is from February but is pertinent and gives a decent background about what the intent of Planning 2.0 was.

I have also read the summary pages of the actual rule and have skimmed the 367 page document found here:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/fi...RuleSigned.pdf

The entire administration(DOI included) seems to be cheering this repeal as a momentous win against regulation. To me it seems as if this rule was/would have been a good compromise that provided a mechanism that allowed for increased public input and still allowed for responsible and regulated energy development.

One of the more common arguments against federal land management is that they don't listen to locals or the public and there is no transparency with planning and decision making. The rule that seemed at least marginally well equipped to help with these issues has now been repealed.

These issues absolutely affect us as sportsmen. BLM planning rules and processes are an important part of the recreation many of us take part in regularly.

I would love to hear others' thoughts on why this rule was a good or bad thing and why the repeal was necessary.
Kwalk3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-28-2017, 11:45 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,647
Default

A few comments.


1. It is not surprising in the least that this happened. For good or bad, Trump has been fairly consistent in following through on his campaign promises and eliminating rules and regulations like this was indeed promised.

2. There is no question that the current administration is going to be pro extraction industries. However, the amount of actual environmental damage that takes place will be more dependent on free market forces than policy. Right now, the price of oil is low and coal very low. (due to many jurisdictions demanding non greenhouse energy) If the market stays this way, it will not make economic sense to drill-baby-drill and it won't happen. Of course, things can change.

3. The complaint by TPL advocates and Southern Utah politicians that their input on land policy is currently ignored is disingenuous. The only "input" these folks will be truly satisfied with is for them to be the only ones calling the shots. (Or better yet, to have it in private hands and tax and regulate the owners.)

4. This move does not prove one way or another how Sec. Zinke will be on the issue of TPL. He still could be on our side, or not. We still have to wait and see.
Kwalk3 likes this.
Catherder is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-28-2017, 11:58 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bountiful, UT
Posts: 926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catherder View Post
A few comments.


1. It is not surprising in the least that this happened. For good or bad, Trump has been fairly consistent in following through on his campaign promises and eliminating rules and regulations like this was indeed promised.

2. There is no question that the current administration is going to be pro extraction industries. However, the amount of actual environmental damage that takes place will be more dependent on free market forces than policy. Right now, the price of oil is low and coal very low. (due to many jurisdictions demanding non greenhouse energy) If the market stays this way, it will not make economic sense to drill-baby-drill and it won't happen. Of course, things can change.

3. The complaint by TPL advocates and Southern Utah politicians that their input on land policy is currently ignored is disingenuous. The only "input" these folks will be truly satisfied with is for them to be the only ones calling the shots. (Or better yet, to have it in private hands and tax and regulate the owners.)

4. This move does not prove one way or another how Sec. Zinke will be on the issue of TPL. He still could be on our side, or not. We still have to wait and see.
Agreed on all the above. Well stated.

I think Zinke opposes TPL which opposition is definitely a good thing. I'm certainly still more pleased that he is there than the other options that were being floated. I guess I'm just a little more skeptical that he will be able to do much more than toe the line.

I'm certainly not surprised that the BLM Planning 2.0 was repealed, I just haven't heard a lot of reasoning as to why from a substantive rather than an emotional point of view.
Kwalk3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-28-2017, 12:13 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 189
Default

I believe the push to get it repealed comes from people like our leaders in Utah that want to move all the fed land to the state. One argument they always make is that the feds are inefficient and do not allow local input. Then they cut funding to make the agency less able to effectively manage the land which supports their argument. The repeal of 2.0 essentially does the same thing. Their argument that locals have no input is strengthened if the do not allow for that input.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Bucksnort is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-28-2017, 03:28 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,282
Default

It sounds like 2.0 was a good thing, involving all stakeholders in developing management plans. We'll see how Zinke turns out. I'm not optimistic.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-28-2017, 09:00 PM   #6 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 99
Default

From the Tribune today
Quote:
At the end of the Obama administration, the Bureau of Land Management implemented so-called BLM Planning 2.0 to give a landscape-scale perspective in resource plans,
What does landscape-scale mean? Opens multiple land use planning for arguments; I can see the drill rig, dust cloud is visible, timber cut negates views. You know Do Gooders love open statement which give them room to create discent

Like all things Obama we got along fine without it. We'll be fine now it's gone.
OriginalOscar is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-29-2017, 08:56 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: So. Weber, Utah
Posts: 1,118
Default

I don't think we got along fine before, (without BLM 2.0). We endured decades of abuse, overgrazing, mining pollution, and overall mismanagement of our public lands. This happened because businesses like ranching, mining, etc had heavy influence. By allowing for a broader view of the land planning, it allowed others to weigh in and actually have a say. Having a broader view of planning also caused some delays and slow movement in land planning decisions, but we already know what happens with the old plan...and it isn't good. The free-market model, for all of its benefits, just doesn't translate well into public land policy sometimes.
R
Kwalk3 likes this.
rjefre is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-29-2017, 12:42 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bountiful, UT
Posts: 926
Default

^^This. It may be inconvenient to have more than just the traditional influencers at the table for BLM planning. It may mean there are sometimes voices that disagree with what we do as sportsmen. However, I think that to best ascribe to a multiple use doctrine, multiple voices need to have a seat at the table early in the process, sportsmen included.
Kwalk3 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-29-2017, 12:55 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
#1DEER 1-I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalOscar View Post
From the Tribune today

What does landscape-scale mean? Opens multiple land use planning for arguments; I can see the drill rig, dust cloud is visible, timber cut negates views. You know Do Gooders love open statement which give them room to create discent

Like all things Obama we got along fine without it. We'll be fine now it's gone.
OO, there is a reason we are at this "transfer" state we are in now. There is a reason land management frustrates every side. It is because we need to take as step forward in land management practices. The planning on a landscape scale was meant to open up management plans beyond on state lines and get away from a one size fits all management use plan. Planning 2.0 gave the public more power than special interests and political pull. Why would Utah politicians who are calling for transferring these lands want frustrations to subside or for management to get better? If people become less frustrated and better land use policies are set in place then it ruins their argument and people will not support transfer because they aren't as frustrated with whats going on. So they killed 2.0, which was a step in the right direction that addressed a lot of the issues those same politicians that killed it have complained about. The truth is they don't want land management to work, because they have an agenda to transfer federal lands to the states. If you fix the current system their argument is void. BLM planning 2.0 was not perfect but was killed based on false facts and a block by those who believe the public shouldn't have more say in management than companies and interests exploiting the lands. Now we are set back to the same old management policies that got us to where we are today.

OO, we went back to the same old system that you say we got a long fine with, yet it is EXACTLY what has caused the frustrations we've seen. Killing this rule was a bad move for public input and the management of public lands. Instead of being given more voice in how planning happens on the public lands you use, killing this rule just made your voice less valued and heard. Like I said, the rule could have been adjusted in some ways by the current administration, instead they just killed it, which got us no where and gave us nothing but the same old same old.

Last edited by #1DEER 1-I; 03-29-2017 at 01:03 PM.
#1DEER 1-I is online now   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-29-2017, 01:36 PM   #10 (permalink)
West side Utah Lake
 
LostLouisianian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,159
Default

Public lands can be efficiently and effectively managed for multiple uses at the same time. 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.
__________________
Jambalaya and a crawfish pie and file' gumbo, Son of a gun we'll have big fun on the bayou, Thibodaux, Fontenot the place is buzzin'
LostLouisianian 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 12:46 PM.


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.