Nature Conservancy and the Western Solar Project

[HighUintas]

15 million acres that is wide open for hunting access?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure of the distribution of that acreage or who the managing bureau is

 

[hoot504]

The entire atmosphere of the podcast was that Steve and his crew were highly suspicious, if not downright opposed, to the solar project. They were polite about it, but that was the feel. If you didn't pick up on this then you just came away with the preconceived impression you wanted to have. It seemed to me they did spend far more time talking about off-shore wind farms, when I wanted them to get back to discussing the solar project.

It was touched on that they could use the land already taken by the fossil fuel industry and convert that to land used for renewables. That could make sense. A slow phase-out, phase-in as the technology comes online and we become less dependent on oil & gas.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

The entire atmosphere of the podcast was that Steve and his crew were highly suspicious, if not downright opposed, to the solar project. They were polite about it, but that was the feel. If you didn't pick up on this then you just came away with the preconceived impression you wanted to have. It seemed to me they did spend far more time talking about off-shore wind farms, when I wanted them to get back to discussing the solar project.

It was touched on that they could use the land already taken by the fossil fuel industry and convert that to land used for renewables. That could make sense. A slow phase-out, phase-in as the technology comes online and we become less dependent on oil & gas.

The issue with using land that has been developed for oil and gas is it isn’t a 1:1 trade, currently 90+% of the landscape is still intact even where they are extracting oil and gas, wildlife is able to use that landscape as they always have with some level of disturbance due to ongoing work, when they convert to solar they won’t leave 90% of the landscape intact, it will be 95% solar panels and 5% roads and there will be no place left for the wildlife to use. It’s all a scam in my opinion, if they truly cared about the environment and the wildlife that occupies the land they would be looking more at rooftop solar, but the nature conservancy guy pretty much wrote that off without a second thought. It doesn’t add up to me. If the goal is truly to save the planet then destroying more of the planet to do it doesn’t seem like the solution I would look to first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

The issue with using land that has been developed for oil and gas is it isn’t a 1:1 trade, currently 90+% of the landscape is still intact even where they are extracting oil and gas, wildlife is able to use that landscape as they always have with some level of disturbance due to ongoing work, when they convert to solar they won’t leave 90% of the landscape intact, it will be 95% solar panels and 5% roads and there will be no place left for the wildlife to use. It’s all a scam in my opinion, if they truly cared about the environment and the wildlife that occupies the land they would be looking more at rooftop solar, but the nature conservancy guy pretty much wrote that off without a second thought. It doesn’t add up to me. If the goal is truly to save the planet then destroying more of the planet to do it doesn’t seem like the solution I would look to first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a seven foot fence required by code around them, so more like 100% unusable area at each location.

 

[TVW]

I was not attempting to be non helpful. How about considering that the direct correlation of political agenda meeting a politically motivated special interests group, is undeniable.

You owe it to yourself to do your own research.

I still don't get it, I guess I'm stupid cause I don't even know where to start researching still.

If I'm being honest this just kinda seems like you saw a chance to take a shot at BHA and took it.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I still don't get it, I guess I'm stupid cause I don't even know where to start researching still.

If I'm being honest this just kinda seems like you saw a chance to take a shot at BHA and took it.

Look into the BHA. Look into their funding. Look into their politics. Then look into their projects.

These sage grouse studies happened just in time to declare solar fields in the west?

Mining is bad even though it gets reclaimed in wildlife habitat. Solar farms restricting public access aren’t? Miles of solar fields versus a mine that gets reclaimed. Which is better for the long term commitment to wildlife habitat? I know. You know. So does the BHA.

They tell you access is their concern. They tell you they are all for hunters and anglers. They aren’t. Their politics aren’t. Nothing they do out of headquarters is nra t to be anything but a place to recruit a base of people, that otherwise are quite conservative in their outlook on hunting and fishing, to recruit more. While aligning with a political party that is trying to eliminate hunting.

If it’s like normal, they’ll be a choir boy along shortly telling everyone how I’m dumb. But, they’ve defined who they are and what their purpose is themselves. No smear tactics are needed to see this for yourself. Look into it.

It wouldn’t hurt to do a search here. Read and make up your own mind. That’d be the prudent thing to do before making anymore assumptions.

 

[TVW]

Look into the BHA. Look into their funding. Look into their politics. Then look into their projects.

These sage grouse studies happened just in time to declare solar fields in the west?

Mining is bad even though it gets reclaimed in wildlife habitat. Solar farms restricting public access aren’t? Miles of solar fields versus a mine that gets reclaimed. Which is better for the long term commitment to wildlife habitat? I know. You know. So does the BHA.

They tell you access is their concern. They tell you they are all for hunters and anglers. They aren’t. Their politics aren’t. Nothing they do out of headquarters is nra t to be anything but a place to recruit a base of people, that otherwise are quite conservative in their outlook on hunting and fishing, to recruit more. While aligning with a political party that is trying to eliminate hunting.

If it’s like normal, they’ll be a choir boy along shortly telling everyone how I’m dumb. But, they’ve defined who they are and what their purpose is themselves. No smear tactics are needed to see this for yourself. Look into it.

It wouldn’t hurt to do a search here. Read and make up your own mind. That’d be the prudent thing to do before making anymore assumptions.

Ok, so I did a quick Google search and started with BHA cause that seemed to be the most reasonableplace to start given what your saying.

And I promise I'm not trying to be a troll..... but I still don't understand what you're saying...it seems like you are saying that BHA is all for these solar projects and they are trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes about it.

But this article here seems to say pretty much the opposite, literally it's right in the headline.

BHA Opposes Solar Development in Priority Habitat, Migration Corridors, and Popular Public Land Hunting Grounds

While BHA recognizes the multiple-use laws that govern our public lands, we seek to ensure that any public land development proposals take into consideration the value of fish and wildlife habitat, migration corridors and potential impacts to hunting and fishing to ensure responsible siting of...

www.backcountryhunters.org

From reading that it actually seems that they support putting it in places that some here have mentioned, such as roof tops and more urban settings before putting it on public land in prime habitat and locking everyone out.

What am I missing?

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Nothing. It’s how the BHA operate. Smoke and mirrors.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The issue with using land that has been developed for oil and gas is it isn’t a 1:1 trade, currently 90+% of the landscape is still intact even where they are extracting oil and gas, wildlife is able to use that landscape as they always have with some level of disturbance due to ongoing work, when they convert to solar they won’t leave 90% of the landscape intact, it will be 95% solar panels and 5% roads and there will be no place left for the wildlife to use. It’s all a scam in my opinion, if they truly cared about the environment and the wildlife that occupies the land they would be looking more at rooftop solar, but the nature conservancy guy pretty much wrote that off without a second thought. It doesn’t add up to me. If the goal is truly to save the planet then destroying more of the planet to do it doesn’t seem like the solution I would look to first


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kinda makes you wander who’s been handing out money to them doesn’t it?

 

[lak2004]

Ok, so I did a quick Google search and started with BHA cause that seemed to be the most reasonableplace to start given what your saying.

And I promise I'm not trying to be a troll..... but I still don't understand what you're saying...it seems like you are saying that BHA is all for these solar projects and they are trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes about it.

But this article here seems to say pretty much the opposite, literally it's right in the headline.

BHA Opposes Solar Development in Priority Habitat, Migration Corridors, and Popular Public Land Hunting Grounds

While BHA recognizes the multiple-use laws that govern our public lands, we seek to ensure that any public land development proposals take into consideration the value of fish and wildlife habitat, migration corridors and potential impacts to hunting and fishing to ensure responsible siting of...

www.backcountryhunters.org

From reading that it actually seems that they support putting it in places that some here have mentioned, such as roof tops and more urban settings before putting it on public land in prime habitat and locking everyone out.

What am I missing?

This dude does this every chance he gets on rokslide. Bashes an organization he doesn't have a clue about and can't actually back it up with any facts. Just being a troll.

 

[Dos Perros]

Who gives a rat's rear end what BHA thinks.

 

[Red Letters]

BLM Solar Energy Project | DSC New Mexico

www.dscnewmexico.com

 

[doc holiday13]

So I finished this podcast last week when I was on an airplane. I feel a little better about it, but I'm a bit skeptical about it still.

Sounds like they are trying to target areas that have been previously used for oil/natural gas extractions, but my hangup is still "how is it viable to transport electricity to end users" Generally those sites tend to be far from city centers. I guess its up to the power company to figure out those logistics

 

[Beendare]

The need or more power is growing at a huge rate.

One only has to look at the failures in Texas with their big reliance on Renewables to see the potential problems; The winter a couple years ago when their windmills froze and grid collapsed.

Now the Tx power authority is warning about blackouts, and it’s only April. The summer is when they get peaked demand. Then look at 1000 acres of solar panels that were destroyed by hail down near Houston.

The current political regime is going to put us in dire straights with their total reliance on Solar and wind. We need more nuclear and nat gas power plants that can ramp up or down.
NMA. Org link