# 30% of land/water conserved by 2030



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Biden administration details plans to conserve 30% of US land and water by 2030


The Biden administration on Thursday outlined in a new report how it aims to achieve its goal of conserving 30% of America's lands and waters by 2030.




www.cnn.com





I’m all for this, done in the right fashion. The mule deer foundation lauded the inclusion of migration routes in the plan.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

In theory I'm all for such goals. I'll definitely wait to get excited until I see the details. It will be daunting to create a strategy for 1-2 terms that is successful not to mention one that inherently requires compliance in a different administration.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

backcountry said:


> In theory I'm all for such goals. I'll definitely wait to get excited until I see the details. It will be daunting to create a strategy for 1-2 terms that is successful not to mention one that inherently requires compliance in a different administration.


Progress is most attainable by incrementalism. If you reach the goal of 30% protected, I can assure you the next Administration wont' trim all 30% away. It's unfortunate there is a pendulum that swings back and forth, but progress made to protect the vital places across the country even if we take 1 step back after 4 or 8 years, we likely took 2 steps forward.

Was also happy to see this step taken as well, but like you said, the pendulum needs to stop swinging back and forth so much









Interior Moves to Strengthen Bedrock Conservation Law Protecting Migratory Birds | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership


This announcement is a positive step forward for maintaining the integrity of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.




www.trcp.org


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

No doubt. I'm mostly skeptical of any presidential promise/commitment that extends into the timeframe of another administration. In this case, 2029-30 at a minimum and potentially 2025+. Incremental progress helps but I'm also growing weary of such rhetoric.

Wish Congress would actually legislate such conservation because that would limit some of the ebb and flow. But that's a waste of my time anymore.

*Agreed on MBTA. It's been a critical tool.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Only thing "Obiden" can keep a promise on, is taxes going up.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

They had a discussion on this the other day on a radio station that I was listening to. While all reports are not it it may prevent commercial fishermen from fishing in what is preserved offshore where they have fished for a couple of generations. 

Then there might be the restrictions that could be placed on the inland areas as far as recreation. 

It's the old saying "be careful of what you want"


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> Only thing "Obiden" can keep a promise on, is taxes going up.


All I have to say is. Lol. I’m not getting into a pissing match over whether someone is your favorite politician here. This Administration is signaling so far to be far better friends of conservation than the last one, period.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> They had a discussion on this the other day on a radio station that I was listening to. While all reports are not it it may prevent commercial fishermen from fishing in what is preserved offshore where they have fished for a couple of generations.
> 
> Then there might be the restrictions that could be placed on the inland areas as far as recreation.
> 
> It's the old saying "be careful of what you want"


I want actual conservation, and it’s not always going to be convenient.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Lots of big words and grand ideas. Nothing wrong with that. Somehow I feel the follow through will be less than ideal.

"Asked about budgeting for the initiative, McCarthy responded, "I don't think that we're prepared at this point to put a total figure on this" but pointed to the President's recent budget request that calls for investments in conservation efforts, as well as "funding mechanisms that are already provided, to *start the job moving forward while we look at the development of an overarching strategy*."

Bold is my emphasis They don't have any idea what they think they are going to accomplish. Lets just throw money at it and see what sticks.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Lots of big words and grand ideas. Nothing wrong with that. Somehow I feel the follow through will be less than ideal.
> 
> "Asked about budgeting for the initiative, McCarthy responded, "I don't think that we're prepared at this point to put a total figure on this" but pointed to the President's recent budget request that calls for investments in conservation efforts, as well as "funding mechanisms that are already provided, to *start the job moving forward while we look at the development of an overarching strategy*."
> 
> Bold is my emphasis They don't have any idea what they think they are going to accomplish. Lets just throw money at it and see what sticks.


I agree we have to see where reality goes, but in the 1st four months they've swung the pendulum back on a few very anti-conservation steps taken the past 4 years, and shown to be more conservation friendly. We will see how much of the bold ideas actually come to fruition over the next few years.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm all for "Conservation" IF, it's done right. Need to have science, study, development of a plan with short and long term goals. Roosevelt did it right IMO. Current politics draft a Bill over a thousand pages and attach a "backdoor" bill along with it. WRONG ANSWER!! 

Once you have conserved the land and water, what's next? It needs to be patrolled to insure protection. All this will come at a cost the taxpayers just aren't willing to fund. Skirting Critters comments.... "careful of what you want".... I'll add mine. "Once a foot is in the door, it cant be closed".

You want conservation? Start here at home, in Utah. Lets conserve what little is left of winter ranges that are cluttered with development and homes. Save OUR natural resource of Big Game!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Things just keep getting better and better.









Range wars: Tension mounts in the West over public lands grazing, wild horses and ranchers


More than 70 animal advocacy and conservation groups are calling on the Biden administration to eliminate livestock grazing on any public lands where wild horse populations exist.




www.ksl.com


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Hard to get much passed through Congress about public lands without it being massive. Despite the cliches, there are actual benefits (alongside real negatives that are well discussed) to pork barrel legislation. My young self would be disappointed but we could use some of the cross the aisle bipartisanship it helped create in modern politics.

And to be fair Roosevelt was largely shooting from the hip with his massive "land grabs", as they would be called now. I think he did the right thing for the time but there wasn't as much of what we now call "science" behind his efforts. He was definitely a naturalist who loved observing wild animals but when it came to actual science he really didn't do much beyond philosophize and hunt. That was important at the time but not exactly a model for what you describe. On the other hand, Biden's current announcement ironically is all about announcing exactly what you describe, ie "science, study, development of a plan with short and long term goals." And don't get me wrong, Roosevelt played an important role for his era but he really doesn't provide a great framework for science based decision making of modern conservation and ecology. 

I'm no longer one to get excited about pressers about potential conservation goals by presidents. I'm skeptical about such executive power but more than anything I'm tired of such promises. I'd much prefer a president under promise and over deliver than the modern strategy of throwing red meat to the base from the outset. Maybe he'll actually deliver thoughtful outcomes but I'm skeptical with the current approach. And I dare say such lofty rhetoric and promises of ambitious goals without any real framework yet has the strong potential to burnout another generation of folks like myself.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> I'm all for "Conservation" IF, it's done right. Need to have science, study, development of a plan with short and long term goals. Roosevelt did it right IMO. Current politics draft a Bill over a thousand pages and attach a "backdoor" bill along with it. WRONG ANSWER!!
> 
> Once you have conserved the land and water, what's next? It needs to be patrolled to insure protection. All this will come at a cost the taxpayers just aren't willing to fund. Skirting Critters comments.... "careful of what you want".... I'll add mine. "Once a foot is in the door, it cant be closed".
> 
> You want conservation? Start here at home, in Utah. Lets conserve what little is left of winter ranges that are cluttered with development and homes. Save OUR natural resource of Big Game!


I agree with your last paragraph, and programs and legislation like this, if funded, help organizations like RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation, etc. secure grants to help purchase easements on those winter ranges. So let’s fund it and at least spend money worth spending. Then let’s find ways to permanently protect winter ranges already in federal public land holdings. Lots of groups that aren’t necessarily hunting related have helped secure grants and protect thousands of acres especially in places surrounding the Wasatch Front.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Things just keep getting better and better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’m not for eliminating it by any means, but trimming it back on public lands? Absolutely. Or at minimum raising the fees associated with it. The wild horse thing is a big problem, the problem is it doesn’t matter who has congress no one has passed anything to address the issue and some of the ranges are getting badly damaged. I’m actually for eliminating the wild horse altogether, but that’s not a viable option either. I’m fine with livestock grazing being trimmed back some, certainly not eliminated obviously.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

backcountry said:


> Hard to get much passed through Congress about public lands without it being massive. Despite the cliches, there are actual benefits (alongside real negatives that are well discussed) to pork barrel legislation. My young self would be disappointed but we could use some of the cross the aisle bipartisanship it helped create in modern politics.
> 
> And to be fair Roosevelt was largely shooting from the hip with his massive "land grabs", as they would be called now. I think he did the right thing for the time but there wasn't as much of what we now call "science" behind his efforts. He was definitely a naturalist who loved observing wild animals but when it came to actual science he really didn't do much beyond philosophize and hunt. That was important at the time but not exactly a model for what you describe. On the other hand, Biden's current announcement ironically is all about announcing exactly what you describe, ie "science, study, development of a plan with short and long term goals." And don't get me wrong, Roosevelt played an important role for his era but he really doesn't provide a great framework for science based decision making of modern conservation and ecology.
> 
> I'm no longer one to get excited about pressers about potential conservation goals by presidents. I'm skeptical about such executive power but more than anything I'm tired of such promises. I'd much prefer a president under promise and over deliver than the modern strategy of throwing red meat to the base from the outset. Maybe he'll actually deliver thoughtful outcomes but I'm skeptical with the current approach. And I dare say such lofty rhetoric and promises of ambitious goals without any real framework yet has the strong potential to burnout another generation of folks like myself.


I 100% agree politics has turned into over-promise and under-deliver.

As for Roosevelt, he’s not too popular among hard core conservatives even today. Anyone really think someone like Mike Lee approves of what Roosevelt did? Roosevelt was bombarded for what he did then, and would get all the same tag lines of “land grabs” “socialist” “dictator” etc. today by plenty of the same folks who complain about public lands all the time.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I agree with your last paragraph, and programs and legislation like this, if funded, help organizations like RMEF, Mule Deer Foundation, etc. secure grants to help purchase easements on those winter ranges. So let’s fund it and at least spend money worth spending. Then let’s find ways to permanently protect winter ranges already in federal public land holdings. Lots of groups that aren’t necessarily hunting related have helped secure grants and protect thousands of acres especially in places surrounding the Wasatch Front.


The only people that need to be involved is the State Legislature! Make it a law on how high you can develop. Don't need to have the "special interest groups" involved.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> And to be fair Roosevelt was largely shooting from the hip with his massive "land grabs", as they would be called now. I think he did the right thing for the time but there wasn't as much of what we now call "science" behind his efforts. He was definitely a naturalist who loved observing wild animals but when it came to actual science he really didn't do much beyond philosophize and hunt.


To be fair to Teddy, he was very close with Gifford Pinchot, who DID represent the best scientific expertise in "conservation" of the period. There is little doubt that Pinchot influenced much of Teddy's actions in his administration, and after. And yes, opponents called the National Forest and Monument designations "Land Grabs", using much the same rhetoric used now. 

Anymore, I think the term "conservation" has become so twisted and politicized, it is hard to not talk "apples and oranges" anymore. So many groups latch onto the title but are radically different. 
SFW is a "conservation organization", but its goals and politics are markedly different from the Sierra Club or SUWA. The organization mentioned in Middlefork's article is listed as a conservation organization, yet I would argue that it is an advocacy group for one non native species (feral horses) at the expense of other species including, notably, indigenous ones. 

Why should one care? It seems like the Utah outdoorsman has sacrificed a lot of money and opportunity in the name of "conservation" . Have we gotten our moneys worth or a bill of goods? AlI I know is hundreds of thousands of dollars later, we are still ranting that we need to "save the deer herd". Are conservation organizations in other areas really helpful or just political advocacy organs? I would like to think some other organizations are helpful, and I think they are, but it does make me wonder.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

To be very clear, I am grateful for both Roosevelt and Pinchot. They played a critical role in American conservation. But it's fair to say the "science" of their era's conservation was more naturalism. Even Pinchot's writings on that subject are clear about that conclusion. They did their best with the profession's (even forestry was basically non-existent according to Pinchot) knowledge and did their best to move it forward. But it had little to no "science" as we know it today. 

And the standard of "science, study, development of a plan with short and long term goals" really didn't come into fruition until a half century later (or more) in the US. Hence my criticism of Roosevelt being an odd hallmark of that preference. It doesn't discount the immense impact on American conservation to highlight how they shot from the hip and learned as they went along. There really wasn't any other way to start the field. 

Even Leupold dabbled more in philosophizing and natural history than is acceptable in science today even though he contributed some important technical writings on wildlife management. 

I'm shocked Roosevelt still remains a respected figure across partisan lines. Like most people of his era, including Pinchot, he got his place more by birthright than merit. Both were skilled but doors were opened for them by class and family status. Not much worse than what today would be considered a elitist, technocrat with goals of an expansive administrative state 😁😳. Granted, I think we forget and gloss over how controversial both individuals could be in their own time. Time tends to wear down the rougher edges when building historical legacies.

Point being, it's hard to go back much later than the 70s if we want to truly judge conservation by science and a plan with actual accountability. It's a truly young member of an old field that's gone through several paradigm shifts.

(I would love nothing more than to philosophize about the conflation between conservation and preservation that distorts modern activism but I'd wager I've already out 90% of the users to sleep. It's a fascinating and dorky subject I love).


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Interesting proposals ...

The feral horse debacle is an interesting one. Most of our current protections seem so much more about how someone “feels” than actual science. Maybe I’m wrong, but it surely seems feelings matter more than science.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The feral horse issue is definitely a debacle. It's an illustrative one.

I'd offer up that it's not an issue of feelings so much as divergent values. Science only provides us observations and data that at some point has to be interpreted through values when it comes to wildlife and land policy. 

There are a ton of Americans who value having the iconic, feral horse roaming our western lands. I'd prefer native wildlife and sustainable ecosystems and therefore support their removal. Science can be used to support either view; heck a study was just released that shows how feral burrows and horses actually create watering holes for native wildlife during drought conditions. 

Same goes for the domestic cattle dispute. Neither them or feral horses "belong" on our lands but they both have their proponents. Both can be managed with sound science. Both will continue to create issues with wildlife. Heck, plenty of hunters support depressing wildlife populations to protect domestic animals, ie wolves vs cattle. 

I often chuckled during the Obama years when so much rhetoric was spoken about "best available science". I sincerely value scientific integrity but that's a short path that ends at the doorstep of policy making. And that's where stakeholders will always battle it out over disparate values.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

taxidermist said:


> The only people that need to be involved is the State Legislature! Make it a law on how high you can develop. Don't need to have the "special interest groups" involved.


The state legislature has no interest in anything but money and development. Yes actually, it very much takes special interest groups, because the super majority Republican legislature isn’t going to say no to development. Money for conservation easements or permanent protection of public land is the only thing that is going to stop development. Have you seen housing and land prices in the state right now?.....It’s going to get worse, not better. We’re running out of room along the Wasatch Front as Salt Lake City builds skyward. Hell the prison had to be moved due to the prime development it was taking up. I promise you, special interest groups pushing for major protections FROM the state legislature are needed. Doesn’t mean I want them to be necessary, but they absolutely are.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

__





Enviromentalists' latest land-grab scheme: The '30 x 30' initiative






www.msn.com





-DallanC


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Should have guessed Dallan C would eventually cite a post by Boebert. Completely bogus stats and comparisons last spring was just a start.

That op-ed is like a conspiracy theorist wet dream: Soros, leftist, the swamp, anti-intellectualism, indoctrination camps, Greta Thunberg, woke, science denialism, land grabs, oh my. I think I can hand in a few filled bingo cards with that link. 

We are definitely in a post-fact world with that freakshow.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

DallanC said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love how it quotes Teddy Roosevelt at the end of the article.....well, Teddy was called a “land grabber” and all sorts of other things for what he did at the time as well. “Land grab” is what is always used by those who see nothing but monetary value of public lands.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

backcountry said:


> Should have guessed Dallan C would eventually cite a post by Boebert. Completely bogus stats and comparisons last spring was just a start.
> 
> That op-ed is like a conspiracy theorist wet dream: Soros, leftist, the swamp, anti-intellectualism, indoctrination camps, Greta Thunberg, woke, science denialism, land grabs, oh my. I think I can hand in a few filled bingo cards with that link.
> 
> We are definitely in a post-fact world with that freakshow.


Imagine quoting Roosevelt in the end of that article as if Roosevelt would have or ever stood for anything Boebert spouts lol. Roosevelt was called everything under the sun by what would now be people like Boebert, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, etc. of today’s world at the time. Roosevelt took pen to paper in the closing days of his presidency to literally lock up and ensure millions upon millions upon millions of acres in this country to be public lands which we all enjoy today. Thank God Roosevelt did what was right, not what the anti-conservationists who had the mindset of people like Boebert, and apparently Dallan C do now. So please Biden Administration, actually go do the best you can to ensure 30% is conserved in the rights ways. Generation after generation will be grateful for it, despite what the anti-conservation conspiracy theory mouth pieces want to spout now like they always have to oppose conservation over dollars.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

So now 10 million acres are threatened by mining. Could someone please help me understand?









Mining ban considered to protect bird species in US West


The Biden administration announced Tuesday it will consider a ban on new mining on large expanses of public lands in Western states to protect a struggling bird species, the greater sage grouse.




www.ksl.com


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

middlefork said:


> So now 10 million acres are threatened by mining. Could someone please help me understand?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Simple, really. Just cleaning up more of Trump's mess.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

middlefork said:


> So now 10 million acres are threatened by mining. Could someone please help me understand?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This goes back to the 2015 compromise to avoid the ESA listing of the Greater Sage Grouse. It was a multi-state effort to reduce the economic impacts of more severe restrictions while also protecting the species. Not only that but it was a landscape scale habitat program. Nothing new about this issue.

Trump was rules to have arbitrarily revoked the compromise in 2017. This is one of the complicated outcomes when much of what presidents try to do is simply erase the previous administration's legacy.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Thanks! For some reason I envisioned a fleet of bulldozer's and excavators lined up ready to pulverize 10 million acres of land.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Thanks! For some reason I envisioned a fleet of bulldozer's and excavators lined up ready to pulverize 10 million acres of land.


It would have been nice if the previous Administration had just left in place a very broadly supported, specific, and thorough plan that already protected these places how they needed to be protected which is the main reason the bird wasn't listed when the decision had to be made years ago.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It would have been nice if the previous Administration had just left in place a very broadly supported, specific, and thorough plan that already protected these places how they needed to be protected which is the main reason the bird wasn't listed when the decision had to be made years ago.


Yes it probably would have been. And now we have another administration arbitrarily changing it again. And who knows maybe the next one will decide to change it again.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Yes it probably would have been. And now we have another administration arbitrarily changing it again. And who knows maybe the next one will decide to change it again.


If it continues what will happen is the bird will be listed, and the ESA is a much harder hurdle for Administrations to swing back and forth on. The original plans that kept the bird off the ESA were good plans, with very broad support. Unfortunately the plans the biologists and scientists come up with are too often tossed aside to cater to political extremists who are convinced they are the experts. I can't say I'm optimistic on sage grouse not being listed on the ESA in some form soon.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Yes it probably would have been. And now we have another administration arbitrarily changing it again. And who knows maybe the next one will decide to change it again.


Credit goes to Obama for declining to list the bird, instead allowing the biologists and scientists to develop the plan to protect it without having to resort to ESA listing. Then Trump, just as with our monuments, stream protections, and so many other environmental protections, arbitrarily messed things up. Biden is just reversing Trump's mischief.


----------

