# BLM Planning 2.0 Repealed



## Kwalk3

http://www.hcn.org/articles/in-latest-skirmish-of-land-wars-congress-supports-mining-and-ranching

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

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/f...gandNepa_Planning_FinalPlanningRuleSigned.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 The rule that seemed at least marginally well equipped to help with these issues has now been repealed.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.


----------



## Catherder

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

Catherder said:


> 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.


----------



## Bucksnort

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


----------



## paddler

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.


----------



## OriginalOscar

From the Tribune today


> 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.


----------



## rjefre

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

^^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.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> 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.


----------



## LostLouisianian

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.


----------



## Kwalk3

LostLouisianian said:


> 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.


----------



## Catherder

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/trumps-plan-wont-reverse-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

Catherder said:


> 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/trumps-plan-wont-reverse-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.


----------



## Trooper

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$$.


----------



## paddler

When you think about local control, picture Mike Noel. I much prefer 2.0.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> 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.


----------



## Kwalk3

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


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> 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.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Kwalk3 said:


> 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


----------



## paddler

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.


----------



## wyogoob

*WTH*

I have worked in gas n oil for over 45 years and worked for a big pipeline company 30 years of that.

As a "Company Man" I sat in many a permitting meeting with the Feds; BLM, FS, Bureau of Rec, Army Corps of Engineers, FWS, others, and the USGS and Coast Guard for offshore work. Gawd, then there's all the State agencies......-O,-

The stories I could tell.

.


----------



## Kwalk3

OriginalOscar said:


> Yep


TU, who you referenced, begs to differ.









Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## OriginalOscar

Kwalk3 said:


> TU, who you referenced, begs to differ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


I said they were involved pre 2.0. Nothing said on their position.


----------



## Kwalk3

OriginalOscar said:


> I said they were involved pre 2.0. Nothing said on their position.


You certainly implied that because they were involved before, it means that the old/current plan was just fine. They think it could be better.

I don't think everything's going to fall apart, but if we can improve on an antiquated planning process, why not do it? Too late now, I suppose.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

It just seems that 2.0 was an attempt to balance the inputs from ranchers and extraction industries with feedback from the general public; hunters, fishermen, hikers, skiers, etc. Why should industry types have more say over our public lands than the public? Whose lands are they, anyway?


----------



## OriginalOscar

Kwalk3 said:


> You certainly implied that because they were involved before, it means that the old/current plan was just fine. They think it could be better.
> 
> I don't think everything's going to fall apart, but if we can improve on an antiquated planning process, why not do it? Too late now, I suppose.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Implied nothing. Just stated a fact they have been involved pre 2.0

Here's a Poster Child 2.0 group. http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.22/non-native-goats-in-utahs-la-sal-mountains

Good Do Gooders; Doing Good for Goodness Sake!


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Implied nothing. Just stated a fact they have been involved pre 2.0
> 
> Here's a Poster Child 2.0 group. http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.22/non-native-goats-in-utahs-la-sal-mountains
> 
> Good Do Gooders; Doing Good for Goodness Sake!


I gotta say, I'm with the botanists on this one. Having degrees in Biology and Cell Physiology, I can see the value of protecting native species. Plus, I don't think we need goats on every mountain range. If they were once native to an area, I would support reintroduction. Introducing non-native species often has unintended consequences, as in this case. This also raises the philosophical issue of whether game species should be managed as a crop, ie, to maximize yield. This appears to be the division's approach here. Not really sold on that idea, either.

Is there something wrong with doing good now? Is it better to do bad, like roll back environmental protections, sell off our public lands, etc? I'm getting confused.


----------



## Kwalk3

TU is also a poster child 2.0 group, along with TRCP and other groups who do a whole lot of actual good for sportsmen and the environment. I think I'll become a do gooder if they're part of it. Thanks for the motivation and substance as always. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder

OriginalOscar said:


> Implied nothing. Just stated a fact they have been involved pre 2.0
> 
> Here's a Poster Child 2.0 group. http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.22/non-native-goats-in-utahs-la-sal-mountains
> 
> Good Do Gooders; Doing Good for Goodness Sake!


It seems like I've seen that link somewhere else recently. -Ov-


----------



## OriginalOscar

Catherder said:


> It seems like I've seen that link somewhere else recently. -Ov-


Yep I plagiarized to make a point. I'd ask paddler how he feels about pheasants, chukars, brown trout, turkeys, brook trout, bass, catfish, buffalo or other non-native critters we chase or catch but I'm going to bed and then out of town.

2.0 fans could form alliance with the Do Gooders to stop F/G from managing for opportunity. Would be great to go back to only Cuts, Deer, Elk, Grouse.


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> Yep I plagiarized to make a point. I'd ask paddler how he feels about pheasants, chukars, brown trout, turkeys, brook trout, bass, catfish, buffalo or other non-native critters we chase or catch but I'm going to bed and then out of town.
> 
> 2.0 fans could form alliance with the Do Gooders to stop F/G from managing for opportunity. Would be great to go back to only Cuts, Deer, Elk, Grouse.


Valid points. Not all introductions turn out badly. AFAIK, pheasants, chukars, turkeys, etc, have not displaced native species or altered habitats. This is also true of some other introductions. However, it appears that introducing goats to high altitude and therefore fragile environments threatens native plant species that occur nowhere else. And, some other introductions are less than successful, or even disastrous. Think _Phragmites australis_, or tumbleweed.

So, it's a case-by-case issue. In the case you mentioned, I think the introduction was unwise.


----------



## Vanilla

I will admit I'm not well-versed in the Planning 2.0 issue. But reading here, I have had one thing come to my mind. Is it possible, that theoretically, this "increased public input" could allow antis from around the country to come in and restrict hunting on public lands? 

I would be interested in hearing specifically from those that supported 2.0 to hear what the weaknesses of the rule would have been. Paddler, kwalk, 1-I...anyone else? What were the weaknesses of this new rule?


----------



## paddler

I don't see any threat to hunting or any weaknesses in 2.0. I see it as a way to increase public input and and allow hunters and fishermen more say in public land management.

Another example of non-native introductions. Who put those **** burbot in Flaming Gorge, anyway?


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I don't see any threat to hunting or any weaknesses in 2.0.


So Planning 2.0 was perfect?


----------



## Kwalk3

Vanilla said:


> So Planning 2.0 was perfect?


I disagree with paddler. I think there are a few weaknesses in the wording and proposed implementation of 2.0 that were latched onto by it's opponents and ultimately used as justification for repeal. Your stated concern about the antis is a valid one that concerns me as well.

These specific components of the planning rule weren't deal breakers for me, but to imply there werent weaknesses within the planning rule is as disingenuous as saying the status quo is just fine.

Sorry I've been slow to respond. I'm traveling for work and will try to put my thoughts together a little better this evening when I get back to the hotel.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

No worries, take your time. We've got time to have the discussion.


----------



## paddler

V, what's your take on 2.0? I said 2.0 looks to be an improvement, not perfect. Public policy evolves, take a step or two forward, then a step or two back. Repealing 2.0 was a step back, IMO. I think we'll continue to see many steps back from the new administration, with few steps forward. 

Earlier today I saw a long term BLM employee as a patient who's in town on business . We talked for a while, and he agrees that 2.0 would have been a good thing. I'll defer to his judgement.


----------



## Vanilla

I don't have a take yet. That's why I'm asking questions. And to be fair, I didn't ask you if it was an improvement, I asked what it's weaknesses were. You said it had none. The logical conclusion to draw on a policy with no weakness at all is....? I think I fairly represented your response, but I'll let you amend it if you'd like.


----------



## Catherder

A few thoughts on what is being discussed.

1. The goal of 2.0 seemed to be to increase stakeholder participation in public land decision making. Entities that most here would consider the "good guys" such as TU, were supportive and I don't think that very many here would mind increased input from them in this arena. It was suggested that groups we don't like could similarly be given an increased voice. This is certainly possible, but it seems that the risk of them having an "overrepresented" voice over other stakeholders would be low unless the general electorate feels the same way. The battle for hunting and fishing's place in America still must be won by the population at large.

2. Based on other actions, the Trump administration likely viewed 2.0 as an extra hoop to go through to do what they or project proponents want on public land. Trump said he would remove such "hoops" and, for good or bad, he has been good on his word. I don't know that it means one thing or another on the TPL issue but it could mean that more projects with environmental concerns go through in this administration.

3. Now, lets look at the converse. Considering the *current* system, I would ask 2 questions.

a) Is it working well?

b) Could "the bad guys" co-opt the current system?

As I see it, here is how I would answer.

a) It seems that nearly everyone complains about it. We've heard the locals from Southern Utah constantly gripe about the Feds not listening to them. It seems though that others aren't happy either. That seems to be the main reason that conservation groups lined up to complain about the 2.0 decision. Therefore, it would seem that whatever we are falling back to with 2.0 being gone wasn't making most stakeholders happy.

b) If you listen to some, the bad guys already have and the environment is toast. IMO, there may be some validity to these concerns, but time will tell. I doubt the Trump folks are overtly anti hunting however. Now, under the current system, with nebulous public input, what would happen if a ultra liberal anti hunting administration came into power? With a vague avenue for public input, the hypothetical anti hunting administration could do whatever they wanted and the current system could theoretically grease the skids to curtail hunting on public lands moreso than a system that demanded public input from multiple stakeholders.


----------



## Vanilla

So I've done some looking, and it was harder than I anticipated to actually find the Planning 2.0 text. All I keep hearing online, on social media, etc. is this simply provided a way for more stakeholder input in the planning process.

I have to wonder how many people have actually read the full text of the proposal? If you haven't, here is the proposal as was included in the Federal Register.

https://www.regulations.gov/content...2-0001&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

I have not read it yet. Just looking at it, I kind of want to stab my eyeballs with corn skewers.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> So I've done some looking, and it was harder than I anticipated to actually find the Planning 2.0 text. All I keep hearing online, on social media, etc. is this simply provided a way for more stakeholder input in the planning process.
> 
> I have to wonder how many people have actually read the full text of the proposal? If you haven't, here is the proposal as was included in the Federal Register.
> 
> https://www.regulations.gov/content...2-0001&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
> 
> I have not read it yet. Just looking at it, I kind of want to stab my eyeballs with corn skewers.


Thanks for the link. I didn't read the entire document, but the summary looks really good. Including all stakeholders seems an enlightened approach. I especially like that science would have played a role in management.

*SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) proposes to amend
existing regulations that establish the
procedures used to prepare, revise, or
amend land use plans pursuant to the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA). The proposed rule would
enable the BLM to more readily address
landscape-scale resource issues, such as
wildfire, habitat connectivity, or the
demand for renewable and nonrenewable
energy sources and to
respond more effectively to
environmental and social changes. The
proposed rule would further emphasize
the role of science in the planning
process and the importance of
evaluating the resource, environmental,
ecological, social, and economic
conditions at the onset of planning. The
proposed rule would affirm the
important role of other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, Indian
tribes, and the public during the
planning process, and would enhance
opportunities for public involvement
and transparency during the preparation
of resource management plans. Finally,
the proposed rule would make revisions
to clarify existing text and use plain
language to improve the readability of
the planning regulations. *

As many of us have said, repealing the rule looks to be a step back for sportsmen, actually all stakeholders not involved in exploiting public lands, and the ecosystems affected.

Oh, well, I see a correction in a few years, maybe sooner.


----------



## Vanilla

So let me get this straight, paddler. You come on here and assert a 68 page rule that you haven't even read does not have any weaknesses? That is a whole new level of crazy, with all due respect. 

And here I thought I was asking for an informed opinion to help shape mine. Duly noted.


----------



## middlefork

This is the biggest weakness I see.

" Finally,
the proposed rule would make revisions
to clarify existing text and use plain
language to improve the readability of
the planning regulations."

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

Put the lawyers right out of picture


----------



## paddler

middlefork said:


> This is the biggest weakness I see.
> 
> " Finally,
> the proposed rule would make revisions
> to clarify existing text and use plain
> language to improve the readability of
> the planning regulations."
> 
> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
> 
> Put the lawyers right out of picture


Yep, that plain language should be avoided at all times. If people actually understand you, it's harder to pull the wool over their eyes.

We must always strive to eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation.


----------



## rjefre

From what I can glean from reading about the BLM 2.0 plan, they were trying to level the playing field by getting more input from a broader spectrum of stakeholders. It looks like certain counties and industries were afraid that with the additional input, it would dilute their influence and also slow down the process of permitting. I can see why permit seekers would want a more streamlined process, but I can also see that many stakeholders were feeling left out in the old way of doing things (pre-2.0 BLM planning). And now it will be back to the old ways. The pendulum swings...
R


----------



## Vanilla

Did it really, in fact, swing? The Planning 2.0 went into effect in December, right? And it was scrapped by March. Was there a single issue that was impacted by 2.0 before it was scrapped? I keep hearing "Now we go back 30 years," when in fact we are going back less than 3 months. 

The more I'm learning about this, the more this feels like a "we have to pass it to find out what is in it" situation. I'm not a big fan of that, even if people that didn't read the rule tell me it was perfect. The same commentary comes out of it, which is a one issue of more input from more people. I'm still trying to figure out what the 68 pages really would do, but it isn't easy. 

I'm hopeful there can be dialogue both on this forum for us poor slaps, but also on a national level that can get passed the pettiness and actually identify where we are coming up short, and fix those things. That goes for public lands and also everything else.


----------



## Kwalk3

Catherder said:


> A few thoughts on what is being discussed.
> 
> 1. The goal of 2.0 seemed to be to increase stakeholder participation in public land decision making. Entities that most here would consider the "good guys" such as TU, were supportive and I don't think that very many here would mind increased input from them in this arena. It was suggested that groups we don't like could similarly be given an increased voice. This is certainly possible, but it seems that the risk of them having an "overrepresented" voice over other stakeholders would be low unless the general electorate feels the same way. The battle for hunting and fishing's place in America still must be won by the population at large.
> 
> 2. Based on other actions, the Trump administration likely viewed 2.0 as an extra hoop to go through to do what they or project proponents want on public land. Trump said he would remove such "hoops" and, for good or bad, he has been good on his word. I don't know that it means one thing or another on the TPL issue but it could mean that more projects with environmental concerns go through in this administration.
> 
> 3. Now, lets look at the converse. Considering the *current* system, I would ask 2 questions.
> 
> a) Is it working well?
> 
> b) Could "the bad guys" co-opt the current system?
> 
> As I see it, here is how I would answer.
> 
> a) It seems that nearly everyone complains about it. We've heard the locals from Southern Utah constantly gripe about the Feds not listening to them. It seems though that others aren't happy either. That seems to be the main reason that conservation groups lined up to complain about the 2.0 decision. Therefore, it would seem that whatever we are falling back to with 2.0 being gone wasn't making most stakeholders happy.
> 
> b) If you listen to some, the bad guys already have and the environment is toast. IMO, there may be some validity to these concerns, but time will tell. I doubt the Trump folks are overtly anti hunting however. Now, under the current system, with nebulous public input, what would happen if a ultra liberal anti hunting administration came into power? With a vague avenue for public input, the hypothetical anti hunting administration could do whatever they wanted and the current system could theoretically grease the skids to curtail hunting on public lands moreso than a system that demanded public input from multiple stakeholders.


Catherder, you put into words a lot of why I wish the planning rule hadn't been repealed.

Vanilla, I mentioned that I would elaborate on a few concerns:

1. The greatest potential weakness with Planning 2.0 would be increased input from groups that may not view hunting favorably.

Currently these environmentalist groups still have a voice but it is all done on the back end through litigation. There is a stated goal within Planning 2.0 to hopefully reduce that back-end litigation by involving all parties in the process early.

I don't know that Planning 2.0 would give them exponentially more influence than they already have. I'm also unsure of whether it would actually reduce the costly litigation to a significant degree. It seems that dealings with some of the environmentalist groups in the past regarding ESA protections(think wolves, grizzlies) have shown that even when a compromise is reached, they aren't afraid to move the goalposts and serially litigate an issue.

I think my concerns regarding the above influence of those unfriendly to hunting and fishing would be assuaged if I thought sportsmen were even quasi-unified and organized enough to ensure our voices are heard during the planning processes. I realize there are some great organizations that are involved on a daily basis and do a great deal to make sure Sportsmen are represented. However, I think sportsmen, myself included, aren't often informed or mobilized enough to effect change and planning in our favor in the planning process. I don't see that as a problem with the rule as much as I do about the general apathy of our community at times.

Like I said in a previous post, this isn't a deal breaker for me, but definitely an acknowledged concern that would require some pro-activity on the part of sportsmen to ensure that our voices were more than a whisper.

2. The other concern thrown out by those opposed to the rule was that there was a shift to landscape scale management in the wording of the rule. I think that for the benefit of wildlife and the ecosystems this is a good thing.

I can, however, see the other side of the coin. By managing a larger ecosystem together, that may have effects on travel plans and resource extraction on local parcels. It seems that it may cause those closest to a swath of BLM land to feel that their voice for said piece of land is diminished somewhat. Instead of input for one area, which may be all they care about, they are required to be involved in a process that plans for a greater landscape. The goals for the landscape may not always jive well with the traditional local uses of an individual parcel.

I would have liked to see something in the wording of the rule to protect the interest of those that a change in planning is most likely to directly affect and ensure that their input is weighted appropriately.

This weakness, while not as much of a concern for me personally, was used often by opponents of the rule. I think that the concerns of locals are valid and ought to be given commensurate consideration.

I'm certain that if I took the time to break down the entire document I could find more weaknesses or things that could be improved on.

TLDR;
Compared to the status quo, I was hopeful that Planning would be a more open process where more voices could be heard early in the process and wouldn't be so beholden to Agricultural and Extraction industries. There were concerns and the rule wasn't perfect, but it seemed to be a step forward.


----------



## Kwalk3

Vanilla said:


> Did it really, in fact, swing? The Planning 2.0 went into effect in December, right? And it was scrapped by March. Was there a single issue that was impacted by 2.0 before it was scrapped? I keep hearing "Now we go back 30 years," when in fact we are going back less than 3 months.
> 
> The more I'm learning about this, the more this feels like a "we have to pass it to find out what is in it" situation. I'm not a big fan of that, even if people that didn't read the rule tell me it was perfect. The same commentary comes out of it, which is a one issue of more input from more people. I'm still trying to figure out what the 68 pages really would do, but it isn't easy.
> 
> I'm hopeful there can be dialogue both on this forum for us poor slaps, but also on a national level that can get passed the pettiness and actually identify where we are coming up short, and fix those things. That goes for public lands and also everything else.


Honest, non-partisan, non-emotional discussion is crucial, but often lacking in the world we live in. I'm not always perfect about leaving emotion out of it, but I certainly try.

I support the rule, but I am also not married to my ideas. Participating in civil discourse about an issue serves to remind us that there are always multiple angles to look at, and if needed I can adjust my opinions based on new information or reasoning.

I think the aims of Planning 2.0 were noble and were attempting to remedy some of where we have been falling short for 30 years. Implementation and it's actual effectiveness are tough to project.

We have survived the outmoded processes to this point. We aren't going back 30 years, but I still view it as a step back to repeal this. Instead of shoring up and making amendments to the rule to account for some of it's shortfalls, it was repealed.

I think an overhaul after 30+ years is wise when it comes to land use planning considering how much the factors relevant to the traditional uses of public land have changed in that time-frame. I don't think simple amendments to the current plan would have been able to effectively address the concerns of all users. That may be the only option we have now, however.

Since it was repealed instead of amended, no rule that is substantially similar can be passed. I would have much preferred to see the 2.0 plan amended to relieve concerns than repealed in it's entirety. That's the rub for me. If something was wrong with 2.0, let's fix it and move forward. I think 2.0 gave us a better, more up-to-date base for effective planning than the status quo.


----------



## rjefre

It was a very short pendulum...but swing it did. 8)
R


----------



## paddler

rjefre said:


> It was a very short pendulum...but swing it did. 8)
> R


Keep in mind those responsible for developing the policy and the repeal. It's regressive, just like the rest of this administration's short sighted actions regarding the environment.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> Keep in mind those responsible for developing the policy and the repeal. It's regressive, just like the rest of this administration's short sighted actions regarding the environment.


No policy developed. Just eliminated 2.0 which was created by President Provincial late 2016 and went back to what has WORKED for decades. Do Gooders can still give input and if they are really unhappy; file a lawsuit.

Regressive? I prefer Reasonable.


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> No policy developed. Just eliminated 2.0 which was created by President Provincial late 2016 and went back to what has WORKED for decades. Do Gooders can still give input and if they are really unhappy; file a lawsuit.
> 
> Regressive? I prefer Reasonable.


If the current methodology was reasonable and worked well, 2.0 would not have been needed. It was an attempt to approach public land management in a collaborative way, thus avoiding litigation. I don't see anything good about the repeal.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> If the current methodology was reasonable and worked well, 2.0 would not have been needed. It was an attempt to approach public land management in a collaborative way, thus avoiding litigation. I don't see anything good about the repeal.


Most of what President Provincial did wasn't needed. 2.0 wasn't needed.


----------

