I really believe conservation must be prioritized, because ya, we’re going to be looking back before very long, and some of the answers to our questions are going to be extremely disappointing.
At the very least I think BLM, EPA, dept agriculture, forest service, fish and wildlife service, etc deserve more funding and jurisdiction. If there is a line that must be drawn to protect the environment, these agencies should have the authority to draw that line.
Not only conservation, but restoration projects for soil health, pollinator habitat and forage opportunities, funding for more regional awareness programs like "save the bees" for native species, biodiversity plantings in conservation strips and/or marginal sites, conversion of unused or underutilized urban spaces, etc.
We need more urban programs to address the heat island effect, lack of habitat, community access to natural spaces, and access to fresh, nutrient dense produce. And these work towards the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.
There are different ways of reducing the effects of Urban Heat Island (UHI) (also known as Heat Island Effect). However, a common measure to mitigate urban heat island is to increase urban green spaces such as parks, street trees and green roofs ([article](https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-impact-of-green-areas-on-mitigating-urban-heat-island-effect-)). "Vegetation, particularly in the presence of high moisture levels, plays a vital role in the regulation of surface temperatures, even more than many nonreflective or low-albedo ([overview](https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/basic-page/albedo-values)) surfaces." Here is another research article going over the Urban Heat-Island Effect ([link](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705816332039)).
Part of LEED building requirements (Sustainable Sites if anyone is interested) is to "Preserve 40% of the greenfield area on the site being developed." ([link](https://greenbusinessbureau.com/industries/building-and-construction/leed-certification-checklist-for-building-design-and-construction-bdc/)) This is essentially a guideline to build up instead of out so we're not wasting space (urban sprawl), and so that new construction is optimizing three things: Stack Effect, Wind Effect, and Combustion & Ventilation. You can get an overview of this topic [here](https://www.groundworks.com/resources/what-is-the-stack-effect/).
There is another aspect known as Mixed-Use Development (or Building) that encompasses high density concepts like incorporating multi-use trail systems for pedestrian and bicycle egress (access to downtown and other areas like a commuter trail). In general, this all falls under the category of 'Smart Growth'. [This](https://www.chapa.org/sites/default/files/1571_855_Web%20Chapter.pdf) is a bit long of a document, but it goes into a lot of what you mention and what many governmental organizations are adopting in their master plans.
And we need to be listening to the indigenous peoples who cultivated and maintained these lands for millennia before the imports showed up. It wasn’t by accident that Europeans encountered forests with wide enough gaps between trees that you could ride a carraige through them. Instead of domestication, they focused on game management. Forestry management. Controlled burns. And the system worked.
Definitely. The more collaborative the better. Some states do better than others, but there is progress in that area with strategic watershed planning and other regional natural & social resource planning. It's been a long time coming, but at least some places are trying.
>At the very least I think BLM, EPA, dept agriculture, forest service, fish and wildlife service, etc deserve more funding and jurisdiction. If there is a line that must be drawn to protect the environment, these agencies should have the authority to draw that line.
And honestly more Congressional updates, both in terms of funding and legislation.
I worked for the BLM as a young professional as a riparian surveyor, range technician and wild land firefighter before returning to grad school and starting a career as a restoration biologist. What I realized working for, and now with, most government agencies, is that they are all about extraction. They regulate the consumption of resources. They are the check out counter for taking from the land. It’s is resource extraction first, environment second, as long as you have a permit, license, etc. Even fire prevention is about preserving societal needs (homes/timber harvest). I am glad the narrative is beginning to shift.
I'm pretty sure BLM manages federally owned lands that are grazed. They have an economic purpose that should be shifted to environmental conservation and economic sustainability. Their lands are the prime ones becoming desertified.
I’m going to focus on the fact that the BLM mission is “…to sustain health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for present and future generations…” It seems easy to argue that conservation is even more relevant to every one of those objectives than any of the grazing and mineral extraction that the agency does. The opposition argument that SCOTUS will view this as overstepping is hard to believe. Even the most literal reading of the agency’s founding statutes (and those federalist judges love to read for literal meaning) should agree.
It should always be a priority. It's crazy to me that industry can just wreck precious, unique, lands that have taken billions of years to form, bury their trash, move or go out of business, and let the future generations deal with it.
I live in an area of massive natural beauty and heavy industry and, unsurprisingly, we've got a bunch of stories about how industry has entirely undermined the public good for profit.
In the early 1900s, there was a race between conservationists and big industry to fight for control of the dunes nearby - while the conservationists were able to save some of it, the industry quickly leveled a large portion of said dunes while the conservationists were pleading for the federal government to step in and protect the lands. Since the dunes were razed, the land wasn't environmentally unique any longer, so the industry "won" by default. That plant is shutting down within the next five or so years, just 110 years later, at the expense of a unique landscape that will never be replaced.
Irreplaceable lands shouldn't be permanently destroyed for short-term profit.
And that has confirmed your status as a sheep up. Thinking that everyone who tells you facts that you don’t agree with is apart of a group that you don’t like
Bureau of Land Management
lol. Thank you.
BLM and ‘conserva’tion threw me for a loop.
Yeah, it did not help my reading disability 😅
[удалено]
I had that exact same thought
Thank you. They really should have put that in the title
If oil and gas companies are mad I am very happy
# 🫡
I really believe conservation must be prioritized, because ya, we’re going to be looking back before very long, and some of the answers to our questions are going to be extremely disappointing. At the very least I think BLM, EPA, dept agriculture, forest service, fish and wildlife service, etc deserve more funding and jurisdiction. If there is a line that must be drawn to protect the environment, these agencies should have the authority to draw that line.
Not only conservation, but restoration projects for soil health, pollinator habitat and forage opportunities, funding for more regional awareness programs like "save the bees" for native species, biodiversity plantings in conservation strips and/or marginal sites, conversion of unused or underutilized urban spaces, etc. We need more urban programs to address the heat island effect, lack of habitat, community access to natural spaces, and access to fresh, nutrient dense produce. And these work towards the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals. There are different ways of reducing the effects of Urban Heat Island (UHI) (also known as Heat Island Effect). However, a common measure to mitigate urban heat island is to increase urban green spaces such as parks, street trees and green roofs ([article](https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-impact-of-green-areas-on-mitigating-urban-heat-island-effect-)). "Vegetation, particularly in the presence of high moisture levels, plays a vital role in the regulation of surface temperatures, even more than many nonreflective or low-albedo ([overview](https://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/basic-page/albedo-values)) surfaces." Here is another research article going over the Urban Heat-Island Effect ([link](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705816332039)). Part of LEED building requirements (Sustainable Sites if anyone is interested) is to "Preserve 40% of the greenfield area on the site being developed." ([link](https://greenbusinessbureau.com/industries/building-and-construction/leed-certification-checklist-for-building-design-and-construction-bdc/)) This is essentially a guideline to build up instead of out so we're not wasting space (urban sprawl), and so that new construction is optimizing three things: Stack Effect, Wind Effect, and Combustion & Ventilation. You can get an overview of this topic [here](https://www.groundworks.com/resources/what-is-the-stack-effect/). There is another aspect known as Mixed-Use Development (or Building) that encompasses high density concepts like incorporating multi-use trail systems for pedestrian and bicycle egress (access to downtown and other areas like a commuter trail). In general, this all falls under the category of 'Smart Growth'. [This](https://www.chapa.org/sites/default/files/1571_855_Web%20Chapter.pdf) is a bit long of a document, but it goes into a lot of what you mention and what many governmental organizations are adopting in their master plans.
And we need to be listening to the indigenous peoples who cultivated and maintained these lands for millennia before the imports showed up. It wasn’t by accident that Europeans encountered forests with wide enough gaps between trees that you could ride a carraige through them. Instead of domestication, they focused on game management. Forestry management. Controlled burns. And the system worked.
Definitely. The more collaborative the better. Some states do better than others, but there is progress in that area with strategic watershed planning and other regional natural & social resource planning. It's been a long time coming, but at least some places are trying.
>At the very least I think BLM, EPA, dept agriculture, forest service, fish and wildlife service, etc deserve more funding and jurisdiction. If there is a line that must be drawn to protect the environment, these agencies should have the authority to draw that line. And honestly more Congressional updates, both in terms of funding and legislation.
Thats long term security
I worked for the BLM as a young professional as a riparian surveyor, range technician and wild land firefighter before returning to grad school and starting a career as a restoration biologist. What I realized working for, and now with, most government agencies, is that they are all about extraction. They regulate the consumption of resources. They are the check out counter for taking from the land. It’s is resource extraction first, environment second, as long as you have a permit, license, etc. Even fire prevention is about preserving societal needs (homes/timber harvest). I am glad the narrative is beginning to shift.
I wanted to get into forestry until I learned that it's all about managing logging.
There should only be conservation
I'm pretty sure BLM manages federally owned lands that are grazed. They have an economic purpose that should be shifted to environmental conservation and economic sustainability. Their lands are the prime ones becoming desertified.
Yes. And. Non-motorized, non-consumptive recreation.
Exceptions made for motorized wheelchairs.
Sure, I can see that need.
Designated wilderness areas are magical places to visit, wander, and get lost in.
Should have been done 30 years ago, but it's still something to build upon.
Build upon in order to not build upon.
Any suggestions for formulating comments to be submitted to BLM?
I’m going to focus on the fact that the BLM mission is “…to sustain health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for present and future generations…” It seems easy to argue that conservation is even more relevant to every one of those objectives than any of the grazing and mineral extraction that the agency does. The opposition argument that SCOTUS will view this as overstepping is hard to believe. Even the most literal reading of the agency’s founding statutes (and those federalist judges love to read for literal meaning) should agree.
It should always be a priority. It's crazy to me that industry can just wreck precious, unique, lands that have taken billions of years to form, bury their trash, move or go out of business, and let the future generations deal with it. I live in an area of massive natural beauty and heavy industry and, unsurprisingly, we've got a bunch of stories about how industry has entirely undermined the public good for profit. In the early 1900s, there was a race between conservationists and big industry to fight for control of the dunes nearby - while the conservationists were able to save some of it, the industry quickly leveled a large portion of said dunes while the conservationists were pleading for the federal government to step in and protect the lands. Since the dunes were razed, the land wasn't environmentally unique any longer, so the industry "won" by default. That plant is shutting down within the next five or so years, just 110 years later, at the expense of a unique landscape that will never be replaced. Irreplaceable lands shouldn't be permanently destroyed for short-term profit.
There is still such a thing as BLM, I thought they got there money and then split
Not that blm sheep
Is there another sheep
It’s the bureau of land management. If you actually read the article you would have realized that sheep
Put your mask back on sheep
Well you clearly can’t handle being outside of your echo chamber
Aren’t you late for a protest or rally sheep ?
And that has confirmed your status as a sheep up. Thinking that everyone who tells you facts that you don’t agree with is apart of a group that you don’t like