Montana joint resolution to transfer federal public land

[AHayes111]

Maybe you would like to expound on why you don’t like BHA?

I am a recent member but I have been a member of and/or donated to dozens of hunting and sport-fishing groups over the years. I have also started local chapters for some of these groups. BHA has a different “perspective” sometimes of how they attack the issues which I consider to be another weapon in our arsenal to advance hunting, fishing opportunity and to preserve our public lands. All of our local groups work on a united front. When one has a project that can benefit everyone, the other groups stand behind them.

Together we are strong. Political division and partisan politics only erodes our advocacy. The Wildlife Federation has done quite a bit for us over the years. I have donated or been a member of every local chapter in every state I have hunted. They are on top of the local issues and get shit done. RMEF has accomplished great things in my state. In particular getting trespass easements through private land for access to some great elk hunting.

Playing partisan politics is a non-starter….as far as the two groups mentioned here, the first time I have heard about them so I can’t give any evaluation.

Supporting wind farms and solar on public land turned many people on BHA.

 

[AHayes111]

Why not trade them for accessible parcels? That would be the best thing we could do don’t you think?

I think so, but some times it is not practical. I could also support selling small isolated tracks of public if the proceeds was used to buy land adjacent to or access to larger tracks. Devil is in the details though.

 

[rogerdoger]

Just came across this.

Doug Burgum, President Trump’s secretary of the interior, explained that the nation’s parks, public lands, and natural resources—including timber, fossil fuels, and minerals—are assets on “the nation’s balance sheet.” Burgum speculated in his confirmation hearing that federal lands could be worth as much as $200 trillion. He argued that the U.S. government, run like a business, should know the value of the corporation’s assets and use those assets “to get a return for the American people.” Under Trump’s proposal, the value of public lands would be determined by their potential market value to grow an SWF, and not by their value to hunters and fishermen; family ranchers; and communities that rely on clean water and air as well as jobs and income that come from natural resource development, recreation, and tourism.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans-to-liquidate-public-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/

Now we know why the Supreme Court rejected Utah’s land transfer, they would get the cash rather than the fed’s. But gee whiz maybe we would get a stimulus check in the mail.

 

[Gila]

Supporting wind farms and solar on public land turned many people on BHA.

Who could be against that! They are trying to protect critical habitat where green energy is produced. Do you really want your honey holes covered with solar panels? There is a solar farm not far from my place. It is on land that looks like where the astronauts landed in Planet of the Apes! All that green energy turning my meter…heck ya! BHA is prodding the BLM to produce green energy on lands that have the least impact on Wildlife. And so the propaganda machine turns: “green energy bad….strip mines and oil rigs good”. This should not be a partisan issue!

 

[AHayes111]

Who could be against that! They are trying to protect critical habitat where green energy is produced. Do you really want your honey holes covered with solar panels? There is a solar farm not far from my place. It is on land that looks like where the astronauts landed in Planet of the Apes! All that green energy turning my meter…heck ya! BHA is prodding the BLM to produce green energy on lands that have the least impact on Wildlife. And so the propaganda machine turns: “green energy bad….strip mines and oil rigs good”. This should not be a partisan issue!

Never said green energy bad... strip mines and oil rigs good. If the solar panels and wind farms had been limited to salt flats and sand, I would be all for it. Problem is it wasn't just limited to salt flats and sand. Can not be green energy good and strip mines and oil rigs bad ether.

 

[Gila]

From what I gather it looked like the Forest Circus caved. Maddy Muson Director of Wild Montana got what she wanted. What happened to BHA? Looks like they got beat out by Maddy. The Forest Circus approved it all. Looks like if you have stupid people on your team you lose? Go figure!

I have yet to see anything stupid come out of BHA, to the contrary. I think they gave it their best shot. Sometimes you win sometimes you don’t. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how good your argument is or how good your science is. The FS has to go by the book which is the Codified Federal Regulations (CFR) just like the other Federal Agencies. Sometime there are “holes” in the CFRs when “distilled down” from U.S.C (United States Code) which are the laws enacted by Congress. I don’t know the details about the Crazyies. But I do know the BHA agendas and what they hope to accomplish.

 

[Gila]

Never said green energy bad... strip mines and oil rigs good. If the solar panels and wind farms had been limited to salt flats and sand, I would be all for it. Problem is it wasn't just limited to salt flats and sand. Can not be green energy good and strip mines and oil rigs bad ether.

Well we could at least agree that we need all methods of energy production. I totally disagree with this Administration’s National Energy Emergency though. However Biden missed some great opportunities to produce energy and sell it abroad. We should have been shipping more LNG to Europe when Russia invaded Ukraine. That revenue would have at least helped to generate enough revenue to help pay for the 125 billion that was spent on Ukraine. So now Trump has to scramble to catch up on energy production. I get that but Indiscriminate, unmitigated extraction with no regard to Wildlife or the environment is the wrong approach. Having said that some enviro groups have abused the ESA to stop other consumptive users on National Forest Lands.

One of the dumbest and totally ridiculous examples affected me personally. In my neck of the woods firewood is a primary heart source. Too many people don’t have electricity. The enviros sued the NFS for not following the ESA to protect the spotted owl. A Federal Judge in Arizona issued an immediate injunction to stop any wood from leaving the National Forests. Firewood shot up to $450 a cord. The silence from our democratic representatives was deafening. I installed a cold climate heat pump but the situation cost us locals a lot of money. Gas prices around here have been good at around two something but the last couple of weeks has approached three. But we can’t just run amuck and tear up public lands without any regulatory oversight or we will lose our hunting, fishing and trapping.

 

[Axle]

I live in a state that is primarily private land, so this discussion is interesting to me. I am curious-those who don’t want to sell one single acre of public land…would you have said the same thing right after the Louisiana purchase? Should our whole country be public land? I think they tried that in a few countries…resulted in some massive famines if I recall correctly.