News for those who care about public land

I saw an article this posted on another website as it relates to this bill.


http://blog.trcp.org/2016/06/15/opening-shots-fired-as-house-considers-public-land-transfer-legislation/?utm_source=rooseveltreportshort&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Roosevelt Report 2015




UPDATE: House Committee Passes Public Land Transfer Legislation

Two bills up for committee vote are overt attempts to undermine public land ownership

The House Natural Resources Committee, for the first time in history, passed legislation that would sell off millions of acres of our public lands. Rep. Don Young’s H.R. 3650, which would sell land for the primary purpose of timber production and not recreational uses, passed the committee with a 23-15 vote. .....

I grew up in Oregon and was aghast at all the old growth forests that got logged off during the Reagan years.
Now when you fly over in a plane you see all that is left are little islands of wilderness designation, surrounded by clear-cuts.
And you see the 50 foot deep strips of trees lining the sides of the 'scenic highways' to create
the illusion of driving through a forest...

"perception is way more in important that reality"

I remember driving down a side road in Oregon once, years ago, to take a leak. 50 feet of trees followed by clear cut as far as I could see. Quite the surprise.

Gordon

Hopefully the senate will shoot it down; would love to watch this go the way of the Hindenburg.

"Hopefully the senate will shoot it down; would love to watch this go the way of the Hindenburg."--Yellow Dart

The senate is republican majority, this land sell of has the fullest blessing of the republican senate...they will surely go for the land sell off.

Check out the Nays (no sell off of land) vs the Yays (yes sell off of land)...the democrats are a jumbled up confused and out of touch crew, as are their colleagues across the aisle, so either way Dems or the GOP, nobody really has the back of American Wilderness. But generally speaking, the Dems vote in favor of conservation efforts significantly more often than their republican colleagues. The current standard bearer of the GOP has repeatedly advocated for the repeal of significant environmental protections and mocked conservation efforts as roadblocks to job creation. Definitely not an environmentalist, he insists global warming is fallacy cast on the US by China to stimulate us to enact environmental protection laws which would harm business interests. The libertarians, gary johnson and william weld, have not had a fraction of exposure, based on their platform as outlined on their website, they prioritize the environment as a "precious gift which needs to be protected". Jill Stein, coming around once again as the green party's presidential candidate, has been outspoken on matters of environmental protection, public lands protection, and access. Her platform has in years past, and presumably still, calls for additional acquisition of public lands for recreational, among other uses.

I am not pushing a candidate or a party. Just noting that access to canyons is a political thing. I know the CAC is our political connection when it comes to influencing public policy with respect to conservation and access as well as other aspects of the sport and the environments in which we play. But its is also up to us, and all individuals, to become as well aware of environmental issues as we are able, if we truly care to make a difference.

Politics is often so disgusting, and by contrast something like canyoneering is so very pure, and many dont like to get filthy toiling in the muck of politics, even if it means just reading about the issues and then going out to vote. So many stay home. My advice to all who love wild places is to be well aware of which elected officials do and do not vote in accordance with your own personal beliefs when it comes to environmental issues and access--this be true at the local, state, and national levels, of course. There are folks who are well aware of their candidate's stance on this issue or that issue, but are then shocked to find their stance with respect to the environment and/or public lands. Be wise, get all the facts you can, and then dont stay home on voting day--again, locally, statewide, and nationally.

NAY
Reps. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.)
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.)
Jim Costa (D-Calif.)
Gregoria Sablan (D-Northern Mariana Islands)
Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.)
Jared Huffman (D-Calif.)
Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.)
Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.)
Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.)
Don Beyer (D-Va.)
Norma Torres (D-Calif.)
Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)
Jared Polis (D-Colo.)
Lacy Clay, Jr. (D-Mo.)

YAY
Reps. Rob Bishop (R-Utah)
Don Young (R-Alaska)
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Doug, Lamborn (R-Colo.)
Rob Wittman (R-Va.)
John Fleming (R-La.)
Tom McClintock (R- Calif.)
Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.)
Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)
Dan Benishek (R-Mich.)
Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)
Raul Labrador (R-Idaho)
Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.)
Jeff Denham (R-Calif.)
Paul Cook (R-Calif.)
Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.)
Garret Graves (R-La.)
Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.)
Jody Hice (R-Ga.)
Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.)
Alex Mooney (R-N.J.)
Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.)
Darin LaHood (R-Ill.

Thank you for this post. Three days ago, I wrote out my post, posted it in this thread, and deleted the whole thing about 45 minutes later. So I will second your post and briefly summarize my longer post. While both parties are beholden to big money and ignore in different ways and degrees the American people who elected them, it can't be ignored that with a single exception (one Rep.), the other 14 names are Democrats who voted against this measure. I too am not arguing for anybody to be Dem. or Rep., but if the environment is your concern, the choice is clear.

The transfer of responsibilities & resources is from the government to the private sector, a private sector whose only goal is to maximize $profit$ at any cost. If they have their way, the national parks will be sold off, and turned into profit centers to line the pockets of the investors. They aren't interesting in breaking even or providing a public service, but of squeezing every cent out of resources and people.

The denial of climate change, which is already having devastating effects on the environment, is the single biggest instant of pseudoscience today. This isn't justified skepticism, but "denialism" of well-founded, thoroughly grounded scientific observations by climatologists for the past 40-50 years, with abundant evidence published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

X2!
Typing this in Las Vegas where we are setting record temperatures AGAIN this year.
And breathing the smoke from the massive Erskine fire in California.
Last year: no snow at Lake Tahoe.
Two years ago the dry forests on Mt. Charleston caught fire and burned within 100 feet of our doorstep.
The glaciers (North and Central Cascades) that I climbed up when I was a teenager have not just receded-
many have completely disappeared. Used to be 2-3 MILES of ice. Gone.
Glacier National Park.
No more glaciers.
It is time to take the 'blinders' off and start calling things what they are.
Climate Warming is already begun and doing something about it starts with
calling it what it is.
And taking responsibility for it.
And then doing something about it...

Very sad so few joined this discussion...canyoneers ought to be rabid about environmental issues. Alas, I have read more threads where people rabidly argue the pros and cons of placing a bolt, or chopping a bolt, but rarely do we engage in discourse designed to enlighten us with regard to environmental issues. Placing or chopping a bolt means absolutely nothing if we have no wild places in which to recreate, hence no place to add or chop that bolt to begin with. No canyons to access. No wild places for our kids and grand kids, etc. Working with the public as I do in my 9-5, I fully understand the need to remain neutral with respect to political issues. However, the canyon collective is populated--one may only imagine-by like minded individuals who LOVE canyons. Placing or chopping a bolt means nothing in the larger view, and environmentalism and preservation means everything. Like it or not, that's political. By remaining apolitical we place in others' hands the future of the places we value most. We should be educating ourselves via the Collective about the environmental policies and voting records of every single elected official--and we should be voting for our canyons...not just in November, but always.

Thanks Robert!
The silence is kind of deafening....
I mention the above examples because they are my direct experience- no 'theory' at all.
And most people on this forum have similar experiences or know someone who has.
The latest just in:
This June in Las Vegas
The hottest on record
Again.

I feel your frustration, I don’t post very often but read frequently.
There needs to be a happy balance as our planet become more and more like Coruscant. I think about the comments and the balance between “natural environment” and “hospitable environment”. I could be wrong but much of the Escalante area is now a “natural environment” where people can go and visit, it’s no longer the “hospitable environment” it once was (and by hospitable I mean where people can go and live and thrive in industry and prosperity). I’ve heard that so many people have left the area that they’ve had to close schools and reduce infrastructural jobs. I would like my kids to be able to go out and enjoy a “natural environment” as much as the next person, but how many sons and grandsons have left the Escalante area because the environment was no longer hospitable?
I guess my point would be is making the decision to protect and maintain vs. sell and harvest; isn’t a choice I’d like to make. It seems like a lose lose scenario.

Scott, I had to look up Coruscant because I am not a science fiction guy. Rather, I am a real science guy. I now know Coruscant to be a fictional planet at the center of the Star Wars galaxy in which, most importantly, the entire planet is urban--there is no wilderness! I like your use of the term and your observation that is what is happening to our nation, and to our planet. I dont know specifically what may or may not be going on in Escalante which is driving people away. But having been through town a handful of times over the last twenty years, I have not seen much of a change with exception of the advent of a few new coffee shops and restaurants and a damn good guide service. Perhaps you are referring to the establishment of the national monument? Perhaps fossil fuel interests have moved off of land which is now the monument and with them have gone the jobs? I am not sure, just thinking out loud here. If that is the case, it seems like a perfect scenario for new business, green businesses, to flourish. Forget the fossil fuels, Escalante would be a great place to harvest the sun and wind for power. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Utah has the potential to supply all the electricity used in the USA--and the Escalante region has been identified as one of the three best locations in the state for harvesting solar power. But it comes back to politics, and it takes people to educate each other and to get on the politicians who will never do this on their own. They are too much in bed with the fossil industry. So again, its up to those of us who care about wild places to make our voices heard and alternative industries will emerge. And, as we have seen with the growth of guiding operations, lodging and eateries, in the area, and hopefully soon a boon from the solar sector, there does seem to be a balance being struck. I disagree with you that the scenarios are all Lose-Lose...but rather, we can easily make them all Win-Win. The technology is there, but the political will is not. Thats where we the people come in.

The population of Escalante dwindles every year and has been on the decline for the past 4 decades when oil, lumber and a variety of other mining operations were closed down. I’m not saying that there isn’t progress in industrialization, yes there is a huge push to solar.
All I’m saying is that in the short run, there is an environmental cost (based on all the factors that contribute to the environmental spectrum from people to farm animals to crops that can no longer be supported in the region that have to be relocated). I was using Escalante as an example but could have picked various other places as that example. If we want to truly keep oil and gas out of natural areas, the urbanized city developments need to be significantly more efficient. For example if people could put solar power back into the grid here in SLC and get paid for it, I believe more homes would contribute to the power grid. Thus less demand would be need on oil and gas fields in development and exploration.

Let’s keep in mind that apart from mining, agriculture will have to be relocated which means some other undeveloped land will have to be developed to replace what was lost in Escalante to feed an ever growing population.


Qatar would be perhaps an example that we could follow?

I think if we were all more cognizant of our footprint, and tried a little harder each and every day, we could all have a more enjoyable planet to pass on down to the next generation (hopefully without an outrageous price tag) and it won’t be a planet Coruscant.

I'm all for solar and wind, so this isn't me trying to start a flame war on the internet. I promise.

That said, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Utah does have the potential to supply all the electricity, via solar, yes. However, that is if we harvest all of the energy of the light hitting the earth. Acutally, the most efficient cells in the world harvest 30%, and are $39 per installed watt; in order to be feasible, it needs to be $1 per installed watt. And when you step down to the next most efficient, it's 16%, and about $1 piw. To make what that study said even more realistic, they're basing it off peak use, at solar noon; rule of thumb is one watt at peak with zero clouds averages to about 1/4 watt throughout the day. So they're right, if you harvest 100%, and it's solar noon all day. But currently we can only harvest 30%, and only 1/4 of that throughout the day, so 7.5% of the US's solar could be powered by Utah. However, that would be way too expensive, we would need to go with the next step down and take the second best panels: 16% harvest, 1/4 average, 4% of the US's electricity via solar.

Then there's the problem of having to source them near population centers. Having to. It is necessary. Line loss is a real issue. So of that 4%, run along to, say, the metropolitan areas of the west coast, you'd lose 20-50% of all the energy just from the distance of, say, Escalante.

I am all for solar, I am installing it on my house, both photovoltaic and photohydronic. But solar farms are not feasible yet.

So while solar is still a developing field, wind is not. Wind has peaked about where it can, technologically. They're great, where it's reliably windy, but those places generally suffer the same problem as solar: nobody lives along the Continental divide, so the amount of line-loss piping it to the metro areas of the country kills the concept.

So solar doesn't work until we can harvest energy more efficiently, and neither work until we can transmit that energy more efficiently.

A book I highly recommend and is an amazing page turner is Energy for Future Presidents. It's written by a tree hugger who wants all this stuff to work, but he knows why it currently doesn't, and lays it out very effectively. The math behind the explanations is in the back of the book if you want to delve into it, but he covers it the way a 14 year old could understand, which is perfect for us laymen.

Again, not trying to stir the environmental pot. Just saying, it's more than politics.

The Canyon Collective is a forum about canyoneering. There is some politics in canyoneering, and canyoneering politics is a fun thing for some people to discuss on here. But many people who are canyoneers and contributors to the CC do not find it fun, nor entertaining.

In a previous decade, there were canyoneering forums that included discussions of politics, including environmental politics. Politics in general and environmental politics in particular tend to be tribal in nature - either you are of the X tribe or of the Y tribe. Members of each tribe would try to shout past each other. "Discussions" tended to be repetitive, pointless and eventually devolved into nasty nasty viciousness. There was really no point, but I still lost many hours of sleep to "there's some guy that is wrong on the Interwebs, and I have to correct his thinking!!!@#!"

The canyoneering community draws heavily from both the X tribe and the Y tribe. Deepening the tribal division does not serve the canyoneering community.

So... let's not. There are plenty of places to ineffectively discuss politics. Friend me on Facebook if this part of your life is missing...

Tom

Got a chuckle for that one.

But you're right. The further I get from 20, the more I realize in general, "You have an opinion, I have an opinion, we aren't going to convince eachother, let's just not talk about it."

Duly noted. Mea culpa.

The yellow dart said: But you're right. The further I get from 20, the more I realize in general, "You have an opinion, I have an opinion, we aren't going to convince each other, let's just not talk about it."

The All Knowing One said: So... let's not. There are plenty of places to ineffectively discuss politics. Friend me on Facebook if this part of your life is missing...

Good idea, lets pretend what truly matters really does not, and lets pretend what doesn't matter is of earth shattering importance.
Now back to our regularly scheduled debates about chopping bolts, canyon "ethics", and other nonsense.

Seems pretty spineless to me.

I don't think they are necessarily saying not to discuss these issues. They are just saying that doing so with random anonymous strangers on the internet is pointless. I'd say a good chunk of people on here agree with you on these issues (I do), but spending my time furiously typing away my opinions when I know without any doubt that I will change no minds, is pretty pointless. I find sitting with people around the fire or over a beer is a better way to show them how right I am.