30x30 Conservation Plan

[3855WIN]

Biden commits to ambitious 30x30 conservation target

In a new executive order, the president promised to protect 30 percent of U.S. land and 30 percent of U.S. oceans by 2030.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[BigHornRam]

"The Great American Outdoors Act, passed last year, fully funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the tune of $900 million a year—considered progress but not nearly enough to satisfy some conservationists."

So they want to ban offshore drilling that pays for the LWCF while whining that $900 million a year wasn't enough money.
Where do they find these people?

 

[Labman]

Where do they find these people?

They are increasingly moving to a small town near you because they can work from home now. Saw it referred to as the “Zoom Boom” the other day.

 

[Hydrophilic]

Biden commits to ambitious 30x30 conservation target

In a new executive order, the president promised to protect 30 percent of U.S. land and 30 percent of U.S. oceans by 2030.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Great news. This is part of a bigger push

The UN declared 2020's the decade of restoration
https://www.decadeonrestoration.org

Wyss Foundation aims to conserve 30% of planet

Wyss Foundation Launches $1 Billion Campaign

Wyss Foundation Launches $1 Billion Campaign to Help Conserve 30% of the Planet by 2030

www.wyssfoundation.org

Bonn Challenge - Big restoration goals

Essentially, infinite growth on finite resources is impossible. Since many don't understand this we might as well learn to fix what we have ruined, and preserve what we haven't.

 

[Carnage2011]

Great news. This is part of a bigger push

The UN declared 2020's the decade of restoration
https://www.decadeonrestoration.org

Wyss Foundation aims to conserve 30% of planet

Wyss Foundation Launches $1 Billion Campaign

Wyss Foundation Launches $1 Billion Campaign to Help Conserve 30% of the Planet by 2030

www.wyssfoundation.org

Bonn Challenge - Big restoration goals

Essentially, infinite growth on finite resources is impossible. Since many don't understand this we might as well learn to fix what we have ruined, and preserve what we haven't.

Is it great news? I’m not sure we need people loving everything to death....the places I enjoy the most are the ones few people ever go. I’m all about conservation, but when the wrong groups are involved we end up with an area that doesn’t allow hunting or trapping and has 7,000 people visiting it daily.

Biden can hardly articulate a sentence....I’m not sure I want him speaking for me on what lands need to be set aside as national monuments.

 

[Hydrophilic]

Is it great news? I’m not sure we need people loving everything to death....the places I enjoy the most are the ones few people ever go. I’m all about conservation, but when the wrong groups are involved we end up with an area that doesn’t allow hunting or trapping and has 7,000 people visiting it daily.

Biden can hardly articulate a sentence....I’m not sure I want him speaking for me on what lands need to be set aside as national monuments.

Explain to me who the wrong groups are, why conservation has to involve hunting/trapping, and what you would do instead

 

[Carnage2011]

Explain to me who the wrong groups are, why conservation has to involve hunting/trapping, and what you would do instead

I don’t know what I would do differently because I don’t know what he is going to do. Everyone should have a seat at the table and as long as their idea of conservation includes joint use then I’m fine with it.
Conservation should include hunting/trapping on lands that already have it. We don’t need more national parks just because someone from Cal Berkeley says so.

I don’t have an opinion on how this is going to go yet. I’m just skeptical that it will be done with multiple parties at the table and with much feedback other than the loud voices screaming for another Yellowstone.

 

[Hydrophilic]

I don’t know what I would do differently because I don’t know what he is going to do. Everyone should have a seat at the table and as long as their idea of conservation includes joint use then I’m fine with it.
Conservation should include hunting/trapping on lands that already have it. We don’t need more national parks just because someone from Cal Berkeley says so.

I don’t have an opinion on how this is going to go yet. I’m just skeptical that it will be done with multiple parties at the table and with much feedback other than the loud voices screaming for another Yellowstone.

If you don't know what he's going to do, or you don't have an opinion on how this is going to go....then why are you here complaining about it and throwing dirt at my response? Seems partisan.

To understand why this is important you need to have a general idea of how bad everything is - massive biodiversity loss, invasive plants, threatened migration routes, water quality issues, water temperature issues, pollution issues, basic requirements for maintaining endangered species, etc.

Will this fix everything if he finds a way to make it happen, no. I see a lot of poorly ran federal land / monuments. But, setting aside lands that cannot be developed is important for many reasons. Bipartisan would be fantastic.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Explain to me who the wrong groups are, why conservation has to involve hunting/trapping, and what you would do instead

Conservation usually has to involve hunting and trapping and fishing because they all fund conservation on alot of levels. Other than that I guess they don't need to be involved. That over $1 billion a year isn't needed i guess.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Explain to me who the wrong groups are, why conservation has to involve hunting/trapping, and what you would do instead

A popular model in a lot of liberal areas is to buy up or set aside land for conservation, ban hunting and trapping, and then it soon becomes a poorly managed resource and a degraded habitat due to anemic funding streams. Urbanites want areas left in their “natural state”. In many or even most cases the plant and animal communities would actually be much better off left the way they were managed under multi-use, whether public or private, because what’s good for game animals is usually good for other species too, and the solid funding stream ensures a perpetual benefit to conservation.

 

[Carnage2011]

If you don't know what he's going to do, or you don't have an opinion on how this is going to go....then why are you here complaining about it and throwing dirt at my response? Seems partisan.

To understand why this is important you need to have a general idea of how bad everything is - massive biodiversity loss, invasive plants, threatened migration routes, water quality issues, water temperature issues, pollution issues, basic requirements for maintaining endangered species, etc.

Will this fix everything if he finds a way to make it happen, no. I see a lot of poorly ran federal land / monuments. But, setting aside lands that cannot be developed is important for many reasons. Bipartisan would be fantastic.

You don’t know what he is going to do either. You know what he says he’s going to do but he’s a politician. I have a pretty solid understand about everything you brought up. I’m skeptical of who is going to be contributing to this.
Bipartisan would be fantastic! The article quotes a couple people from UCB...

Stick around for awhile bud. You might find we agree on a thing or two...or maybe we won’t.

 

[Carnage2011]

If you don't know what he's going to do, or you don't have an opinion on how this is going to go....then why are you here complaining about it and throwing dirt at my response? Seems partisan.

To understand why this is important you need to have a general idea of how bad everything is - massive biodiversity loss, invasive plants, threatened migration routes, water quality issues, water temperature issues, pollution issues, basic requirements for maintaining endangered species, etc.

Will this fix everything if he finds a way to make it happen, no. I see a lot of poorly ran federal land / monuments. But, setting aside lands that cannot be developed is important for many reasons. Bipartisan would be fantastic.

You’ve been here for 8 hours and already claiming my comment is partisan? I wouldn’t have any faith in this process if Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz was running it. Miss me with that partisan bullshit.

 

[MTGomer]

If you don't know what he's going to do, or you don't have an opinion on how this is going to go....then why are you here complaining about it and throwing dirt at my response? Seems partisan.

To understand why this is important you need to have a general idea of how bad everything is - massive biodiversity loss, invasive plants, threatened migration routes, water quality issues, water temperature issues, pollution issues, basic requirements for maintaining endangered species, etc.

Will this fix everything if he finds a way to make it happen, no. I see a lot of poorly ran federal land / monuments. But, setting aside lands that cannot be developed is important for many reasons. Bipartisan would be fantastic.

Welcome back, Mark.

 

[Hydrophilic]

You don’t know what he is going to do either. You know what he says he’s going to do but he’s a politician. I have a pretty solid understand about everything you brought up. I’m skeptical of who is going to be contributing to this.
Bipartisan would be fantastic! The article quotes a couple people from UCB...

Stick around for awhile bud. You might find we agree on a thing or two...or maybe we won’t.

I have no intent to agree or disagree, I simply stated I found the 30x30 commitment great news. Chill.

 

[Carnage2011]

I have no intent to agree or disagree, I simply stated I found the 30x30 commitment great news. Chill.

Great! I found that it may not be great news. Glad we can each have our own opinion!

 

[BigHornRam]

This is the part of the article that caught my attention.



What metrics are going to be used to qualify the lands that are properly "preserved". The article is vague and lacking details, yet scientists have been "working" on this plan for years. Count me as skeptical of what is being rolled out here with this executive order.

 

[BigHornRam]

Interesting that the several hundred thousand acres that have been "conserved" with conservation easements (including public access) funded by the LWCF in Montana in the last 20 years are not included in this 30-30 by 2030 plan. Why do these lands not qualify?

 

[88man]

Explain to me who the wrong groups are, why conservation has to involve hunting/trapping, and what you would do instead

Why shouldn't it involve hunting & trapping

 

[Hydrophilic]

Why shouldn't it involve hunting & trapping

Assuming you are addressing my statement on conservation..

Conservation does not need to involve hunting and trapping. Yellowstone, Crater Lake, many other National parks, monuments, National Wildlife refuges are examples of this already in place. It should when possible.