White House rescinds public land use rule

[Mike Islander]

no, the opposite. that is why the very people complaining this rule is being done away with are the first ones to say we cant sell public land because of the OG and minerals.

So extraction rights increase risk of sale to private?

 

[Warmsy]

Good

So extraction rights increase risk of sale to private?

Good question.

 

[CJ19]

So extraction rights increase risk of sale to private?

go ahead and say what you are trying to get at.

 

[Mike Islander]

go ahead and say what you are trying to get at.

I wonder if extraction rights reduce the drive to sell public land, because income from leases can justify Federal management costs. I wasn't sure based on your answer whether I made that clear.

 

[CJ19]

I wonder if extraction rights reduce the drive to sell public land, because income from leases can justify Federal management costs. I wasn't sure based on your answer whether I made that clear.

I am sure land with extraction rights intacted also sell better. But having extracting mineral resources, OG, and timber as financial benefit are thing the folks fighting PLT go to first. Then its a classic bait and switch like we see here in this thread. The lands go from being a source of income through extraction to an expenditure through publicly funded conservation projects. I am not pro PLT but that is what is occurring in the PLT debate.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I guess he is in the 70% that have a negative view of Congress.

70%? last election said otherwise.

Problem with this bill along with others is you want to champion one part, Ignore the rest, then scream sky is falling, when someone speaks up about the bad that was railroaded with the rest of the bill.

public land is a multi-use doctrine, their are an array of other environmental laws watching guarding public land multi use.

 

[Wrench]

Before the rule there was an instance where a solar farm was placed on critical habitat. Don’t recall where or when. Will have to try and find it.

Does wind count? If so, a lot of ground was stolen from us in Washington by the wind farms. We lost access during construction for safety of the workers and then it shifted to the safety of the equipment.....even though it was said they'd allow recreation after.

They did on about 1% of the original land.

 

[Wrench]

Extraction and mining has been occurring on .gov lands for many decades. The .gov retains ownership and the extraction is done for a lease fee and in the case of oil (dunno about ore) is taxed by quantity.

 

[ezwy]

Speaking as someone who fires up the drills, BLM has never been difficult to permit to exploratory drill for minerals, usually about 30 days and I can disturb (and reclaim) 5 acres very easily. What will be a game changer is opening up mineral exploration and drilling in the National Forest, which has always been challenging. I hope this doesn't happen, as I personally care about public lands more than I do about finding more gold.

Didn’t realize BLM was that fast. Thanks for updating my perspective

 

[CJ19]

Speaking as someone who fires up the drills, BLM has never been difficult to permit to exploratory drill for minerals, usually about 30 days and I can disturb (and reclaim) 5 acres very easily. What will be a game changer is opening up mineral exploration and drilling in the National Forest, which has always been challenging. I hope this doesn't happen, as I personally care about public lands more than I do about finding more gold.

Where in this rule or its cancellation is national forest opened up? or are you referring to something else?

 

[EastHumboldt]

Where in this rule or its cancellation is national forest opened up? or are you referring to something else?

Your avatar adds an unhinged tone to all of your statements…. Reasonable or not.

 

[mostlybirch]

Where in this rule or its cancellation is national forest opened up? or are you referring to something else?

I was replying to another user about the current non-existent barriers to exploratory drilling on BLM public lands, and making a comment that Forest Service is more difficult but may be streamlined very shortly, but failed to reference the "Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production" EO which mandates Mining as the "Primary Land Use" on federal lands with minerals.

 

[CJ19]

I was replying to another user about the current non-existent barriers to exploratory drilling on BLM public lands, and making a comment that Forest Service is more difficult but may be streamlined very shortly, but failed to reference the "Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production" EO which mandates Mining as the "Primary Land Use" on federal lands with minerals.

Gotchya

 

[OSU]

I was replying to another user about the current non-existent barriers to exploratory drilling on BLM public lands, and making a comment that Forest Service is more difficult but may be streamlined very shortly, but failed to reference the "Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production" EO which mandates Mining as the "Primary Land Use" on federal lands with minerals.

I have done a lot of FERC projects on public land agree that BLM is much much easier than forest service for the environmental review. I will never forget my first project when like 1000 non profit environmental/legal groups requested the "right to sue" during the public comment period. I was shocked but later realized Its basically a stunt they all do so that if the project gets denied they can tell their donors that they were involved in stopping it even though the did nothing more than state on the record that they might want to sue.......

 

[CJ19]

M

Your avatar adds an unhinged tone to all of your statements…. Reasonable or not.

Maybe. I guess its unhinged to think developing millions of acres of public land and water for industrial renewable energy is not good for public land hunters. I am not anti renewable. But renewables are worse for public lands hunters than extraction industries and just as bad for conservation. This public land rule was a way for politicians to pick winners and losers when it came to public land development. In Big Conservations mind....extraction are the losers. Renewable are the winner.


Groups like these are the very definition of astroturfing.

astroturfing -

the deceptive practice of presenting an orchestrated marketing or public relations campaign in the guise of unsolicited comments from members of the public.



Big conservation and their shills in this thread do nothing but play politics with regulations by naming rules "The Public Land Rule" so when they get killed for being nonsense, those "Conservation" NGO can pretend to be outraged.

Look at the NGO in the Outdoor Life article these so called conservationist have linked. "The Wilderness Society". Nothing more than a 100% political lobbying group to divert money from tax payers into their own pockets. A look at their social media tells a clear picture. You will notice all they do is shill Democrat talking points. They are all in on the complete development and industrialization of public land with renewables.

 

[PredatoryProwler]

renewables are worse for public lands hunters than extraction industries and just as bad for conservation

source? I would like to believe the opposite.

“Disturbance caused by oil and gas activities can result in fundamental changes in ecological functions and processes, and lead to increased predation of declining species, reduced reproduction and increased susceptibility to disease”

“Oil and gas activities can disturb and displace wildlife, cause physiological stress and can even result in wildlife deaths.”

Further, These extraction industries contribute to climate change, further impacting wildlife for all hunters.

 

[CJ19]

source? I would like to believe the opposite.

“Disturbance caused by oil and gas activities can result in fundamental changes in ecological functions and processes, and lead to increased predation of declining species, reduced reproduction and increased susceptibility to disease”

“Oil and gas activities can disturb and displace wildlife, cause physiological stress and can even result in wildlife deaths.”

Further, These extraction industries contribute to climate change, further impacting wildlife for all hunters.

Source- my eyes and years of experience. Shot and hunted plenty of big game around or on OG facilities or rows. Same for hunting transmission lines. Maybe A better way to say it is that replacing one with the other is not an improvement for wildlife or public land users at those sites. Of course any industrial activity has impact. Large scale mining is obviously pretty rough on the environment. Same with solar. Renewables require mining rare earth these days tho. Wind and og are probably similar footprints with both having their own unique impacts. But what you have written here is utter nonsense that looks something chatgpt pulled from reddit.