Contributors to this thread:
New head of BLM
William Pendley from Wyoming named as head of the BLM. This is a guy who has written that he thinks that all land owned by the federal government should be sold. As far as the future of hunting in the west goes, my biggest fear is the selling off of public land.
Not to worry. He had exprrssed those beliefs in the past, but this administration has pledged to not do that, and keeping their word. He works for Bernhardt, and Bernhardt isn't in favor of that policy change. This is yet another overreaction by BHA leadership, who helped get judges appointed that are now stopping hunts in the West.
My two biggest fears are hunts being stopped and large tracts of public land being closed off to hunting by liberal judges and future liberal administrations, and hunting policy being placed in the hands of voters.
Public lands staying public is a high priority. That said, conservatives are far less dangerous to hunting (and about every other aspect of the America I want) than liberals. So although I disagree with his opinions regarding selling public lands, I appreciate his smaller government stances and believe the day-to-day decisions he has the power to make will be preferable to what we get from when the left is in power.
I doubt he will push for sales officially and if he does, he wont have the backing from above.
Jaquomo, you are wrong about this guy. I live out West and the Republican Party platform has been to sell off the BLM public lands. The GOP continually lies to the American voters. The billionaires and millionaires landowners want the natural resources and will do absolutely anything to get their hands on the public lands and resources. If you don’t believe me the google Wilks Brothers !..... do not buy into these lies as this corrupt administration is gutting the middle class as we speak
Highplainsdrifter, I'm a lifelong Coloradoan. In 1995 the Clinton administration sold off my large BLM elk honeyhole where I grew up hunting, learned my chops. This is not new, and isn't a "Republican" idea.
You need to turn off MSNBC and look at what is truly happening. This administration is pro-hunting, pro-public lands. Yes, some radical Repubs in Utah and elsewhere spout about privatizing public land to appease their constituents. But transfers aren't accelerating as the fear-mongers predicted.
If the Dems are truly concerned about this, and they control the House, they could pass a law overruling the federal mandate (signed by Bill Clinton) for federal agencies to sell off "surplus" public land like my elk spot. Instead, they are more concerned about providing free health care for illegals.
As Lou says, the Dems are as guilty of selling off public lands as the Republicans. Possibly more so...
Bet a guy could look up how much public lands have been SOLD, not LEASED under what administrations and under which party’s leadership. You might be surprised...
Add to that the insanity of the Dems locking hunters out of public lands by making more National Monuments and Parks, expanding wilderness, not allowing responsible forest management and closing more roads... Not a fanboy of the Dems public land use policies.
Can’t say I agree with anything the Dems have on their platform. I mean, nothing. It is like their platform is to destroy the United States... Every aspect of what has made this country so great. Nope, can’t support them in any way.
Bingo Treeline! "I'll show those dastardly Repubs that claim they want to sell public land...I'll vote DEMOCRAT!" Sheesh talk about the worst of all possible options.
You can either fight some on the right that want to sell off public lands, or you can just kiss your American freedom good bye, which is what will happen with the current alternative option. It is better to at least know when someone believes that all public land should be sold, and be able to stand up against that idea, than to have it done on the down low.
Treeline x 3
Is this a trick to get me kicked off Bowsite? Teed up like this..... good grief.....
Lets just say (calmly) I feel much better working with someone you can talk facts and logic to and not have to debate the number of unicorn tags....
I gotta say ... the guy looks strange. Is weird hair a per-requisite for this administration? (I say that as an independent Trump voter). Eh ... I'm with Lou. The vast majority of the time, if you assume "over-reaction" when a group is trying to increase donations, you'll be right ... even when they are otherwise on the "right" side (and I say that as an NRA member -- anyone else think their ads are a little over-the-top from time to time?)
Why does this automatically have to devolve into a Republican vs Democrat thread. The fact is that a guy who very much wants public lands to be sold off is now the head of the BLM. That's a bad thing. It seems like the common sense thing to do would be to contact your elected officials and let them know that you do not approve and let them know why. This is what BHA is asking people to do. This doesn't need to be an "us vs them" issue. Maybe instead of bickering we could convince the right that public lands need to remain public and then we wouldn't have to worry about this garbage anymore. You don't need to vote democrat to tell republicans you care about public lands. You can just call them up and tell them. It's that easy.
You guys need to start voting Dem. Think of all the time you'll have to hug trees and pet wolves and grizzlies when none of us have jobs to go to. We'll all be guaranteed a living wage and free healthcare and live in a perfect environmental utopia where none of us will have to hunt for our food anymore! Paradise on earth!
Not a fan of selling off public lands, for sure. But hope this guy follows the lead of those above him that seem to not want to do that.
Thanks to the Clinton admin, more Cascades timberland roads were gated and locked up, and more logging curtailed (90%) than good was done. Logging industry all but folded, and as a result, elk and deer habitat suffered greatly. Anyone who knows a bit about west coast mt. timber knows that well planned clearcutting (not vast scale rape and pillage) creates good forage, and if done with salmon restoration in mind, will keep river silt quantities down, preserving and increasing salmon runs. All these are healthy forest practices for sustained harvest of elk/deer, timber and fish, with benefits to logging industries esp. if resources are kept here in America. All these spell good west coast economics, mainly from public land. What did the left do for all that, in the name of 'conservation'??? Nothing Good.
This article says it pretty well, IMO.
BTW, that mountain (Emigrant Peak) is my favorite of all mountains, and I spent more time on it than just about anywhere else in MT.
See my post above. From an article in year 2000:
"WASHINGTON -- President Clinton signed a bill this week that authorizes the Bureau of Land Management to sell roughly 3.3 million acres in Western states, including nearly 900,000 in Nevada and 100,000 acres in Southern Nevada.
The bill effectively creates incentives for the BLM to sell land holdings and for the first time ever use the sale money to buy other sensitive lands.
"The implications for the BLM and public lands are huge," BLM spokesman in Washington Rem Hawes said."
The Clinton administration sold my elk spot five years before this law was passed. The Dems control the house now. They had a super majority and the presidency in 2008-2010. Why won't they do anything to overturn this bill? That's what you guys should be asking your Dem representatives. Or maybe ask old Land Tawney. We need to convince the left that public lands need to remain public. The BLM is just following the law.
William Pendley from Wyoming named as head of the BLM. This is a guy who has written that he thinks that all land owned by the federal government should be sold. As far as the future of hunting in the west goes, my biggest fear is the selling off of public land.
Looks like it re-posted my original post. Not sure how that happened. Thanks "NoWiser" for making the point that no matter what your political beliefs are, it can't be good when a guy who thinks all public lands should be sold off is now in charge of the BLM. The large tracts of public lands in Montana that are closed off to hunting are closed off by the Wilks brothers (and I can assure you that those guys aren't liberals). Instead of appointing people who believe in selling off all public land, it would be nice to appoint some people who will work on gaining access to all public land for the public. And I don't care what party they are from. TrapperKayak, I managed sawmills in Montana for the biggest landowner in the US. Most of their mills got shutdown, and it was because they wanted to cut their trees as fast as possible, run as many shifts in the mills as possible, so that they could get revenue as quickly as possible. They knew for 20 years that they were harvesting timber too quickly, but increased production rather than try put it at a sustainable level. Then they turn around and blame the forest service for the mills closing - it's funny what people believe. Today they only have a couple of mills left and the forest service is supplying most of their logs.
A hypothetical : If BHA existed when Clinton Admin sold the BLM land you reference, Do you think would have opposed or supported it?
Depends upon who the BHA leadership would have been at the time. I don't remember BHA raising a big stink about the Obama administration selling off public lands and appointing anti-hunting judges. Could that be because Tawney worked so hard to get him elected?
The Forest Service greatly reduced their timber harvests years ago due to "pressures" and philosophies. Lawsuits by anti logging groups and diversion of funds to wildfire are all a part of it. And that has greatly hurt the timber industry. The beetle kill in places like Colorado would not be near as significant if the Feds would have been doing clearcut management to break up the mature stands. Certainly, the beetles are a natural occurring forest pest but good management practices can greatly reduce damage by various forest pests. But selling off the public lands is certainly not a solution to management practices. Note I left out the word bad because some believe they are managing well with hands off. Public lands are one of our greatest assets. Ask those in some other countries, or Texas! ...don't get me going on forest management! Was in the middle of those issues my whole career at all levels. I'm retired and just want to live the dream.
It is the democrat left wing environuts here in Indiana that have prevented logging in the Hoosier NF and State Forests, the result is our Ruffed Grouse season is now gone, the birds are threatened and the old growth timber is detrimental to wildlife as a viable ecosystem for many various wildlife and birds ... clear cuts help more forms of wildlife than does the old growth timber ... hands off dosnt work ...
A hypothetical: If a large tract of public land was about to either be designated and locked-up as a National Monument with no hunting allowed, or kept as-is with multiple use, but some energy development/leasing permitted to generate revenue, on which side would the current BHA leadership fall?
Hypothetical but possbly very real scenario if a super liberal is elected president in the near future.
I know what I'd want to see ^^
Read the Republican platform, getting rid of public lands is high on their list, they actually want to turn them back over to state control which on the surface sounds OK to pretty good, But one serious flaw is the states can not afford to control them, one forest fire will bankrupt the state, So what next?? they go on the auction block and keep in mind your friendly rancher or next door neighbor will not be the highest bidder, China, Germany Japan,,Saudi Arabia are going to be the highest bidders, Do we belive these countries will manage these lands in our best interests will wildlife management be a concern, Parts of these lands could be managed for wildlife and if it is do we think we will be the beneficiary of their management,, To me the risk is just to great to take a chance
I'd rather take and make 100 yard shots than vote Democrat. ;)
Midwest once eloquently said, I'll vote Republican and fight them on this one issue rather than voting Democrat and fighting them on every issue other than this one.
Exactly, I won't vote Democrat. I vote Republican, and email my representatives letting them know they are wrong on this issue.
I don't think anyone says you have to vote Democrat to oppose this guy. Someone who has a stated goal of privatizing public lands is someone I can't support to lead the BLM no matter who put him in the job. I'd oppose this guy no matter who put them there and I oppose any Democratic plan to limit or access to public lands.
Turning federal lands back to the States is a fools game too. There is no way that I believe the Western States could keep that land. It would be sold off to the highest bidder in short order because there is no way they could afford to manage it. Granted, the feds are not doing a great job of managing it either, and that is due directly to constantly shrinking budgets. It's all part of the plan to privatize it. Shrink budgets enough that they can't afford to keep it and it will have to end up in private hands. It won't be something you or I will be able buy and we will be locked out of it forever.
Don't let your political blinders keep you from seeing what's going on. We need to fight anyone from either side that tries to take away what is ours.
Guys, you do understand how politics work, right? The job of a politician is to get reelected. A representative in a hardcore red "Sagebrush Rebellion" congressional district will advocate for unrealistic things (land sales, transfers to states, etc..) to get votes.
Then when a few of them band together in the caucus, the RNC will agree to put that wording in the official platform in a trade to get their votes on some bills that are more moderate. Its all about negotiation.
National Forest and BLM will NEVER be transferred to state control. States don't want it, can't afford it. Congresscritters from every other state will oppose it because their constituents oppose it, both Repub and Dem. There will continue to be sales of so-called "surplus" public land until Congress passes a bill to prevent it. That's way down on the list of priorities.
What Pendley believes privately and says to appease his rancher buddies has absolutely nothing to do with policy development in a massive agency like Interior, where Bernhardt and Trump are in charge. Don Jr. will have far more influence in BLM land use policy decisions than Pendley. But this is a great alarmist fundraising opportunity for groups lile Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, and BHA. Trust me, their leadership is absolutely giddy over Pendley's appointment.
You're a wise old soul Lou
Public lands won't be sold or put in state control. However, they will continue to be exposed to deregulation, energy exploration/development, and other private and corporate interests, as they have been under this administration from day one.
I honestly don't think either side has hunters/outdoorsman in their best interests.
Honest question. . . . not meant to stir any pot.
How is energy exploration detrimental to the wildlife and public usage?
This is an honest question. I ask it because I like to surf western Realtor sites (not that I can afford it), and noticed a southern CO ranch for sale, that bordered the Hill Ranch. The ranch for sale, and the Hill ranch next door were crisscrossed by access roads and pads for natural gas. Looked like every ridge top had a natural gas well, or a closed well. Yet the Hill ranch is renowned for wildlife, and if the realtor site could be believed, the ranch for sale had abundant wildlife.
Same could be said about gun control, Lou, but nobody takes it lightly when that’s discussed.
A bad idea is a bad idea and transfer of public lands is a terrible one. Nobody should get a free pass proposing it just because they are on “your side.” This country would be a lot better off if people ignored parties and let their representatives know their thoughts on individual issues. It doesn’t mean you can’t vote for someone with a bad idea, but it’s prudent to let them know your thoughts rather than turning a blind eye.
Blind allegiance to political parties baffles me.
Actually, according to the BLM's own statistics, oil and gas acreage leasing on federal land was higher per year during Obama's first term than during the first two years of this administration. But best to not let facts get in the way of a good narrative...
NoWiser, absolutely, and thats why Jason Chaffetz withdrew his bill. He is a hunter and outdoorsman, and the barrage of letters, emails, and calls fron outdoorsmen convinced him to pull it (even though it didn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of passing into law).
Obama wasn't in control prior to Obama being able to do something about all that oil and gas leasing. Obama did everything in Obama's power to make everything better for all of us. Obama was the best of the best. Obama.
I think o&g platforms are kind of ugly to have in the woods and wild lands, but otherwise my guess would be the impacts are pretty minimal. Added human activity at the platform might even be the biggest, which is probably pretty minimal because a lot of wildlife get used to it.
"Blind allegiance to political parties baffles me." Me too, but it seems you only complain when the blind allegiance is to the red.
Franzen, I'm very conservative and my voting record would prove that. I just don't make excuses for a party because I tend to vote for them. My representatives in MN have heard from me plenty about bad ideas from the left.......and trust me, we've had more than our share in the last decade or so.
Maybe Obama didn't know about all the energy leasing until he read about it in the news. Like, you know, everything else bad that happened under his watch...
Ive never voted for a Dem and I'll never vote for a Dem ... it isnt the Dems/libs/socialists who want to preserve hunting and the 2 A.... it is the Dems and their whacked out stance on many of the environut agendas that are a threat ... I guess the Green New Deal hasnt been heard of by some on here .... heck, some even still believe in the MM global warming hoax ... smh .... is it Republicans wanting to reintroduce Wolves, is it Republicans wanting to stop grizzly hunts... no, it is the environuts and their Dem base ..
Yes, I guess anyone can cherry pick "facts" from time frames that suit their narrative.
Federal onshore oil and gas permits steadily declined during Obama's last 6 years, albeit from a very high number of permits when he took office. They were at a low point when Trump took office. Since Trump, the permits have continued to climb. In 2018 there was nearly a 40% jump in permitting over the previous year. Everything points to this trend continuing.
This thread is the new community forum lol
Who here says gas and oil leasing is bad?
"Federal onshore oil and gas permits steadily declined during Obama's last 6 years, albeit from a very high number of permits when he took office. They were at a low point when Trump took office. Since Trump, the permits have continued to climb. In 2018 there was nearly a 40% jump in permitting over the previous year. Everything points to this trend continuing." Would you rather we bought our oil from OPEC and gave all the revenue to the middle east? Would you rather be oil dependent or oil independent? I vote we SELL oil rather than BUY it.
Drill baby Drill !! .. if it keeps my gas and energy costs down .. DRILL ...
Cherry picking, indeed.
"According to the New York Times, 1.35 million acres of federal land has been leased this year. Compare that to BLM data showing that the Obama administration leased 1.9 million acres in 2009, 1.35 million acres in 2010, two million acres in 2011 and 1.75 million acres in 2012 – outpacing the Trump administration’s 2017 and 2018 leasing totals each year.
For more perspective, federal leasing during the last year of the Bush administration in 2008 (2.6 million acres) was nearly double what has been leased this year, and leasing data dating all the way back to the Reagan administration shows that the Trump administration’s leasing acreage totals are comparatively low."
At a 40% rate of increase, like we saw in 2018, 2019 will be in the 1.9 million acre range.
And it's not just about the number of leases, it's also about the total amount of public land Trump has made available for leases. There's so much of it, auctions come and go with no bidders, allowing hundreds of thousands of acres to be leased in noncompetitive next day sales for a tiny fraction of the price Obama era bidders paid. Google Miles City Montana and Robert Price for an example.
Leased land doesn’t equate bad habitat. Reclamation creates habitat. I’m so tired of hearing western environmentalist exclaim their idea of great wildlife habitat. All ungulates require disturbed, uneven aged forest with a big mixture of young succession, to thrive.
Many other species do too. As a fact, I can’t think of one that wouldn’t do better in those conditions. From microscopic organisms in the soil, to birds of prey, it’s a win win to have this in their environment. Higher carrying capacity for all. Yet we get back seat environmentalists proclaiming something alarming. Nobody is that dumb if you’ve actually been around it. But, it’s easier to talk about recited agenda then to be educated on truths.
"Guys, you do understand how politics work, right? The job of a politician is to get reelected. A representative in a hardcore red "Sagebrush Rebellion" congressional district will advocate for unrealistic things (land sales, transfers to states, etc..) to get votes."
We aren't supposed to believe what this guy has been saying for years, has started publicly, written about extensively, and made a lucrative legal career by advocating for the sale of public lands? He was doing all that just to get elected? But as far as I can find he's never even run for public office has he? Pendleton is a paid scumbag that has stated over and over that he wants the federal government to turn over lands to the States.
But I'm supposed to believe instead something that I read here on Bowsite that completely contradicts everything this guy has ever said and written? Is he supposed to be the biggest liar ever appointed to lead a federal affect or what? I can't buy that. Maybe put Don Jr. in charge. That I could go with. But not this guy.
Oh, and yes, many of the States would love to have that Land and some have initiated lawsuits to get their hands on it. They don't say what the long term plan is, but you are right. They obviously could never in your wildest dreams be able to keep it in public hands and manage it for the use of us all. To the States, gaining control and ownership of public lands would be a huge windfall as they sell it off to the highest bidder. You can bet your bottom dollar on that outcome.
This stuff scares the crap out of me and it may just be a matter of time before it finally happens. Greed doesn't quit. Hopefully by the time it does happen I'll be too old to care personally. But it will be a sad day for every Bowsiters kids and grandkids.
And yes, this topic does belong on the community forum. Which I typically avoid like the plague.
Screw our kids and grandkids, Whip. Better to chance leaving them with no public lands than to openly badmouth a republican on this site.
Don’t be an idiot. And don’t be so quick to turn into the political hack you say you are against. And, realize that the ”Dem” haters are only pointing out that political party’s offer you no safety. For all the bad you BHA people talk about the Republican Party, there was an equally stifling move done by the “public land” protectors.
FWIW, I’m ultra conservative and have no allegiance to the Republican Party. But, the truth is the truth.
Very well stated, Whip.
Justin, how much hunting have you done on public land that has been leased to oil/gas/coal companies, especially lands that have been developed?
Matt, about 50 percent of the hunting I do here and out west is on land with gas and oil leases. How bout you?
Justin, don’t confuse my disgust with a certain issue as condemnation of an entire political party. As you said, no party offers safety. You may think I’m an idiot but I’m simply stating the obvious. The majority here are turning a blind eye to this issue because “their” party supports it. Furthermore, anyone that voices their disagreement with said party gets flamed. Seems it’s better to make excuses for lousy idea here than risk getting called a “lib.”
Whip, if you're going to quote my post, quote all of it. Dont cherry-pick and take it out of context. Pendley can't do anything unilaterally. You know that.
Where was the outrage when Obama was leasing millions of acres of public land for energy development? What about the BLM selling public land under Obama's watch?Somehow I don't recall seeing any inflammatory threads about that.
No, the majority isn’t. They are pointing out the obvious to anyone interested in it.
I will put myself out there and say there is no one here that wouldn’t agree with your previous posts. Until you assumed that must here are for a party.
Here is the real truth. We are all for public land. We will fight hand and tooth to avoid its transfer. We all depend on it that much. However, anyone who claims safety sides with only one party is a lunatic. To say the least.
The main thing is we all look at this for what it is. Neither party is for anything except advancing their standings. And, both have their ideas of how to do that at the cost of public land holdings.
Sorry guys, but neither political party has out best interests at heart. They all just want to get re-elected, and they will say and do whatever they think the most people want to hear.......On a positive note though, I did just hear that all the airfields we captured from the British in the Revolutionary War are being opened up to public hunting.
I don’t know which side to believe anymore. But I can tell you I live in Oregon a “green” state and the hunting has gone down the crapper. We can’t hunt predators with dogs, no logging , now wolves!! There might be public land but there isn’t much on it and it will be less and less in the future! I apply and hope to draw tags in “red” states every year:)) if not I try to find some private here:))
Bowhunter, there’s no need to pick a side to believe. This guy has written books and wrote articles about ridding the nation of public land. You can just believe his own words.
For those that still don’t understand or are living on another planet here’s some questions to ponder. Which party do these following people and organizations belong to and support. Sierra club HSUS PETA Anti trapping organizations Anti gun organizations Pro wolf advocates Pro grizzly bear advocates Anti hunting groups that there are too many to list Project coyote: wants an end to killing of any predator. In California alone the number of anti everything thrives. So yes there are conservative politicians that need an awake call. If you vote for Democratic people you are supporting the party that wants to deprive you from doing what you live to do outdoors.
Jaq, I don't think I took anything out of context. But I sure don't believe this guy will not have any influence on public land policy in this country. If he won't have any influence why give him the job? It is not just some powerless figurehead position. And he wasn't saying and writing all that stuff just to make some ranchers feel good, and now will turn around and do the exact opposite. Again, I'm not buying that argument.
Also, I'm not opposed to energy development on public lands where appropriate. I hunt on land in one state with a bunch of oil wells and enjoy some incredible hunting. Obama did leases, Trump does leases. That isn't what this is about. It's about a guy who has stated his goal is to privatize our public land. As in transfer it to the States and ultimately to private hands. Rich hands, foriegn hands, but not our hands. That IS the issue and all the other blabber just distracts us from what really matters. This is not about politics.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..... Hmmph..
You do realize that public land sales don’t happen like a private sale? Also, if he were able to pull off some land sales, it won’t be to his ranching buddies. Cattle money doesn’t compete with Ted Turner kind of money. And, neither does gas and oil.
The biggest threats these lands face is the likely buyers. It isn’t going to be gas and oil. They are only interested in the minerals. Their bids would show that. It isn’t going to be ranchers either. They only want the grass. Their bids would show it too. It’s going to be the ultra rich individual or, an investment firm. Which completely goes against the narrative of what you propose this man presents as a danger to public land.
I agree we need to stay vigilant. But, let’s not get the objective confused because of party politics.
If public land is privatized, why does it matter who buys it? The end result for the average outdoorsman will be the same.
The more I read about this Pendley guy, the more concerned I get. He's definitely not the typical 'whatever-way-the-wind-blows' type politician.
Matt nails the end point: "If public land is privatized, why does it matter who buys it? The end result for the average outdoorsman will be the same."
Some may be sold and used for logging, which would be good assuming it's done well (stream buffers etc).
Some may be sold for other options which end up restricting public access or eliminating it.
Some will sit there for ever because for some reason, no one wants that chunk.
I'd rather see public land stay public and for the fed/state land managers to be more aggressive with logging - not just for fire issues, more so even for wildlife habitat enrichment. And it's cool that some money is made for the state/feds and logger in the process.
Will, I totally agree. My BLM elk spot was sold to a wealthy adjacent landowner who wanted to add that piece of prime elk habitat to his ranch. He was buddies with the BLM regional land sale guy who made the deal happen, and promised him he and his son could hunt elk there after the sale was completed (which they were allowed to do for a couple years). It was a total inside job. The sale wasn't advertised, and nobody else was allowed to bid on it.
Two other chunks of public hunting access (one where I killed my first bull) were sold to the big ranch next door a couple years later. I'm sure this kind of crap goes on all the time.
Until Congress changes the law, this will continue. Instead of everybody getting wound up over a second-tier bureaucrat like Pendley, these groups should be pressuring Congress to act and rescind the law that not only allows it, but mandates land sales. But Pendley is a convenient villian and poster child for the latest fundraising effort, and these groups need villians to whip up donations.
Fellas, it’s tome for you guys to get out of the bubble and get educated on this.
Federal land owned by the government is managed by the department of interior. It is federally mandated to sell when feasible to public interests. It’s been that way for a LONG time. And, will continue to be that way. It has been sold for development, given back to states for trust lands, traded, etc... for a whole lot longer then most realize and, by administrations republican and Democrat. Because congress years ago saw the need to allow rural America to develop.
Public land managed by the BLM falls in that criteria. Yes, there needs to be watchful eyes. But, this guy doesn’t make the call who to sell it to. That takes a lot higher pay grade then him. So, if you are going to be alarmed, why weren’t you 5, 19, 35 years ago? I have an opinion that it is your willingness to be spoon fed propaganda.
Lou, we posted at the same time. Spot on brother.
'how much hunting have you done on public land that has been leased to oil/gas/coal companies, especially lands that have been developed?' What makes you think the oil leased BLM land held great hunting opportunities to begin with, prior to oil and gas leasing? Most of it is high desert sagebrush and wasteland, suitable for pronghorn maybe.
Do any of you think he'd have been appointed the position he is now in if he hadn't been advocating for the transfer of federal public lands his entire career? Serious question. The fact that someone with his credentials was put into this position is concerning. Would it make sense to put a lifelong and vocal member of PETA in charge of a state's Department of Game and Fish?
As far as BHA goes, it is right in their wheelhouse to bring this to their member's attention. This guy is a threat no matter what anyone says. He was a threat to public lands before he headed the BLM and he's even more of a threat now. This can be looked at as another opportunity for everyone to remind both parties that they value public lands. I don't think I'm being spoon-fed anything. BHA has done some things recently that I very much disagree with and have me questioning whether or not I want to re-up my membership. But that's a different topic.
I think he was appointed because he has a long track record as a highly competent administrator, with a deep background in public service and policy. He is also a conservative with deep roots in the West. I might be concerned if he was appointed Secretary of the Interior. But his role is to manage a huge complicated bureaucracy at the 30,000 foot level and execute existing policy that comes down from above, not make law.
Born and raised in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Pendley received B.A. and M.A. degrees in Economics and Political Science from George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He was a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps, after which he received his J.D. from the University of Wyoming College of Law, where he was Senior Editor on Land and Water Law Review.
Pendley served as an attorney to former Senator Clifford P. Hansen (R-Wyoming) and to the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. During the Reagan Administration, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy and Minerals of the Department of Interior, where he authored President Reagan's National Minerals Policy and Exclusive Economic Zone proclamation. Pendley was a consultant to former Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman, Jr., and was engaged in the private practice of law in the Washington, D.C., area before his return to the West in 1989 to become President of the Mountain States Legal Foundation for nearly 30 years.
When it comes to energy leasing on public land, whrich do you think has more impact to wildlife resources, and which political affiliate would you support as a result of this assessment? This?:
When it comes to energy leasing on public land, whrich do you think has more impact to wildlife resources, and which political affiliate would you support as a result of this assessment? Or this?:
TK, you are dragging this around to R vs D again. This thread has nothing to do with that, it has to do with a specific person appointed to a specific position. That said, your photos do represent one of the issues I have with BHA.
I'm just showing the impacts of one type of energy development vs another, so I guess so - R v D. But its R that is in office, and that is part of the issue - that one appointee. Its gonna be one or the other so we might as well address reality.
I agree with the solar thing - while i think it's use should be expanded, the planning has not been well thought out. You have massive amounts of paved space with tons of sun exposure which could be used for solar fields while providing cover for auto's, extending roof life on buildings etc. The planning there so far has been akin to putting a 100 story building for tech companies in the middle of a CRP field in tweedle dee super rural Nebraska... Just makes no sense.
Like anything new, people jump on it fast to get the leading edge of the profits... then people realize the mistakes and try to go a different way. Regrettably, a lot of "ugh" happens first.
Sorry, didnt mean to derail, just hate seeing farmers leasing and selling off acres of land for solar farms, or our open spaces being turned into solar farms. I know energy is vital... Just wish there were less impactful ways to generate it... Fusion anyone :)?