Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

just read on another thread that some Wildlife Management Areas have been leased for o&g drilling. samething is happening on Nat. Forest land and may be rapidly increasing if the F. Shale is productive on these lands. Of course timber harvest has been occuring for years.

Given that these activities are going to occur on public lands, how should the impacts be dealt with?
Should different types of activities (drilling vs timber, for example) have different standards?

Are we sure they are going to occur on public lands, Grant? Earlier this year a member of Congress proposed that the US Forest Service be moved to the Department of the Interior, to reflect better the public's desire for the nation's resources to be exploited for recreation rather than mineral and timber removal. This proposal has been rejected in the past, but in a new Congress the legislation might have legs.

Similarly, I suspect that there may be a public outcry to the leasing of Arkansas's wildlife areas for both timber and natural gas. I know that Cleburne County, one of the poorest counties in the state, has been one of the most difficult places for Chesapeake to get leases (this per two mid-level Chesapeake employees). The local people like their land healthy more they want the money. Arkansas has notoriously weak environmental legislation compared to many other states, but the reaction of people in Cleburne County to Chesapeake says to me that AGFC and even the governor may face backlash from this decision. If I understand correctly, the leases in AGFC wildlife land now is strictly for exploration not drilling. Hopefully, it’ll stay that way.

Regardless, some of the severance tax money should go to ADEQ to add employees and increase salaries. ADEQ is having to operate on a pre-shale budget with tremendously increased workloads and some key positions standing vacant. Not surprisingly, employees have confided that they cannot monitor most of the impact activity going on now. If we want monitoring at the levels of even a few years ago, the ADEQ budget must be increased drastically.

I think they should also use a large portion of the money to buy more land for wildlife areas throughout the state. I would be interested in finding out just exactly what they plan on doing with all this money.

Obviously, I have a different view of the value (necessity) of resource extraction - unless one is off the grid and living in a home milled from timber on their own property, we all benefit from responsible resource extraction on public lands that don't possess some more valuable and unique environmental or aesthetic quality.

Having said that, I agree whole heartedly with Kim & Greg, that a significant portion of those proceeds should be spent on mitigation, research, and enforcement. Rather than alienate your bureaucrats and politicians with protests against using public land resources, why not advocate spending the money where it will do the most good?

Rather than alienate your bureaucrats and politicians with protests against using public land resources, why not proactively advocate for spending the money where it will do the most good?

Blasphemy!! :)

My concern on the WMA leases is that it was done without public comment. Not against some extraction of natural resources but it should be done within reason. Don't just give the extractors a free ticket to do it their way only.

One use of $$$ would be to add about 4-6 positions to monitor those areas for compiance on a daily basis as long as operations go on in them.

We're watching one of them being evaluated by ADEQ for less-than-best practices here in Cleburne County (private property) and it has to do with water quality.

Right now, it appears that our state is enamored of the $$$$$$$$$$$$$ this business in spending in the state. Unless some re-writing of the regs happens and I think it's too late for that now, everybody better enjoy the high if it's buzzing you. The hangover, when drilling is over(work-over and maintenance operations are not as cash-needy) or prices go down, is going to be a real beaut.

Seen it happen before.

The article was in the NWA version of the DemZet today or yesterday. Definitely drilling not just "exploration" in two different AGFC managed properties. BUT Chesapeake is going to pay 20% royalty not just the mandated 12.5%, keep your fingers crossed some of that goes to mitigation. There is a great quote in the article about the wildlife liking the new fresh grass they plant around the drill sites. One question... Is that a native grass their planting?

Steph -

Since these properties exist to serve our hunters -- it's a "deer farm" -- there are food plots and wildlife openings all through these properties with non-indigenous plants -- rye, wheat, clover hybrids, etc.

P.S. I'll be up in NWA next week -- will camp out in Van's office, visit a new sinkhole in Kingston, and drop by the Savoy Field Research Facility. Love to visit and talk groundwater. Lunch?

Steph wrote:The article was in the NWA version of the DemZet today or yesterday. Definitely drilling not just "exploration" in two different AGFC managed properties. BUT Chesapeake is going to pay 20% royalty not just the mandated 12.5%, keep your fingers crossed some of that goes to mitigation. There is a great quote in the article about the wildlife liking the new fresh grass they plant around the drill sites. One question... Is that a native grass their planting?

Steph, that's very disappointing to me. The work Chesapeake has done here has already had a tremendously negative impact. I'll be happy to provide anyone with details off the board, but after days of mitigation work, Chesapeake still had substantial problems when the investigator got there. Any work in wildlife management areas will need constant monitoring by the public.

Butch, I prefer to use the national forests as originally intended when they were set aside, for true emergencies. I believe in logging on private land rather than public, and I do believe with good management that there would be enough land. What do you think?

I think with an unchecked human population such as the one we have now, that there will never be enough land. We multiply at an exponential rate without regard to the use of our land. Even crop rotation can only sustain so many people for so long.

The idea behind responsible land usage is great, but rarely practiced. That is the largest part of the problem.

Also, the food plots, etc, that John spoke of..and the management for wildlife in the area. What wildlife are you trying to manage for? Are these generalists species such as Raccoon and Opossum, or a more specialized such as red wolves, bears, river otter, etc?

The generalist species thrive in even the harshest of locations, thus their being generalists. I catch them here on UALR campus all the time. The others hwoever, well..the impact it has on their populations are seldom thought about. People see a coon or two and some squirrels and think hey, great wildlife ecosystem. What you don't see is the amount of species that are diminished or wiped out altogether due to poor managemnt practices.
If there are no overseers, then why play by the rules if you are big timber or oil. More supervision is needed for these contractors and companies to make sure the land is disturbed no more than needed, and that the proper reparations are made.
Just my 1.4 cents, as I cannot afford the full 2.

Joe

Greg Parker wrote:I think they should also use a large portion of the money to buy more land for wildlife areas throughout the state. I would be interested in finding out just exactly what they plan on doing with all this money.

More new trucks and maybe some out of state vacations for the game wardens that produce the most revenue!!! Maybe they can get a new vacation house for employee use. Maybe a big powerful high speed boat to use on the AR like the guys from Miami Vice. Maybe a new Hummer H1. Maybe a new jet airplane for employee use. The options are endless for a rouge beauracy that doesn't answer to anybody but the governor and millions of dollars to squander.

This is not a comment on whether drilling is good or bad. Those of you who know me, know I'm one of the last people to advocate extracting fossil fuels. But I wanted to add something about the history of conservation, utilization of natural resources on public land, and a clarification about why the national forest were created...Our national forest system developed out of the very old tradition of game preserves in Europe. These game preserves were set aside for hunting by the noble class. Our national forest were created/ preserved for utilitarian reasons.

From Gifford Pinchot - "Conservation means the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time," Pinchot writes (p. 48); "it demands the complete and orderly development of all our resources for the benefit of all the people, instead of the partial exploitation of them for the benefit of a few. It recognizes fully the right of the present generation to use what it needs and all it needs of the natural resources now available, but it recognizes equally our obligation so to use what we need that our descendants shall not be deprived of what they need" (p. 80). The Fight for Conservation. Pinchot tried to get the NPS under control of the Forest Service, so those lands could be mined, logged, etc. But even back then (early 1900's) this was not considered a viable option.

It is interesting to me that we (i.e. our federal government) has embraced both sides of the conservation movement: 1) Pragamatic/Utilitarian - forest service and BLM, and 2) Aesthetic - NPS.

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in"

"select cutting our forest as their job"
by Butch Crain on Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:41 pm

From the Forest Service's web site quoting the Organic Administration Act of 1897, which formed the first national forests -

" to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States…"

It wasn't then, isn't now, nor should it ever be their sole mission, but harvesting timber is central to why we have national forests and how we pay for them.

Arkansas, like Louisiana (contrary to the apparent belief of some expats that like to hate on Bayou country) has been blessed with abundant natural resources and landscapes. And Arkansans, like we in Louisiana, use their fair share of energy and forest products. As do Alaskans and Floridians. We all need to pony up.

It just needs to be done responsibly and pay it's way - including mitigation, research, and enforcement.

With 30 years working for and with NGOs, industry, government, and private landowners, I know that the result of confrontation in lieu of engagement, is so counter productive as to be self destructive.

scott yarbrough wrote:

Greg Parker wrote:I think they should also use a large portion of the money to buy more land for wildlife areas throughout the state. I would be interested in finding out just exactly what they plan on doing with all this money.

More new trucks and maybe some out of state vacations for the game wardens that produce the most revenue!!! Maybe they can get a new vacation house for employee use. Maybe a big powerful high speed boat to use on the AR like the guys from Miami Vice. Maybe a new Hummer H1. Maybe a new jet airplane for employee use. The options are endless for a rouge beauracy that doesn't answer to anybody but the governor and millions of dollars to squander.

Scott, under Amendment 35 (1944) of the State Constitution, AG&FC is in charge of its revenues and gives little authority to the governor or legislature. Theoretically, they could tell Mr. Beebe to suck on it when he asked them to share some of the funds. Also, they get a dedicated 1/8% revenue from sales tax.

Read somewhere they have more vehicles than they do employees!

Link to the Amendment (p.104 if you have to find it)

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/data/cons ... on1874.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sorry. I thought there was one person in the state they had to answer to. Guess I was wrong.