Masks required on federal land

El Serio

Member
Feb 1, 2018
96
131
President Biden just signed an executive order requiring masks and social distancing on all federal property for the next 100 days.

Pretty far reaching considering that BLM and Forest Service property make up a large percentage of the western states.

What effect will do you think this will have on hunters?
 

go_deep

Veteran member
Nov 30, 2014
2,417
1,371
Wyoming
President Biden just signed an executive order requiring masks and social distancing on all federal property for the next 100 days.

Pretty far reaching considering that BLM and Forest Service property make up a large percentage of the western states.

What effect will do you think this will have on hunters?
Way I read it was in all federal buildings.
Have a link that states, outside you have to wear a mask?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Travis Horner

JimP

Veteran member
Mar 28, 2016
5,474
4,594
67
Gypsum, Co
Until we see the actual written executive order it is all speculation on just what the wording is as far as wearing mask.

I have heard both, federal property and federal buildings. Take your pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuzzH

El Serio

Member
Feb 1, 2018
96
131
Until we see the actual written executive order it is all speculation on just what the wording is as far as wearing mask.

I have heard both, federal property and federal buildings. Take your pick.
Very true, the official order is the key. I can't find it yet, but the initial reports from the news outlets that do their best to make him look good aren't promising
 

taskswap

Active Member
Jul 9, 2018
453
303
Colorado
Strong leadership is when they do it to the other guy. Oppression is when they do it to you.

This is no big deal to me. I have no hunts planned over the next 100 days but even if I did, a) it's hard to imagine this getting enforced on some back-woods chunk of USFS land (in all my miles of hiking and hunting I've never even SEEN an officer more than 100yds from a parking lot) and b) it's colder than a witch's hind tit out there. I'd be protecting my face anyway.

I haven't had the flu in a year. To be honest, I may keep masking up for Walmart and other trips even after this mess is finally under control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tdub24 and BuzzH

El Serio

Member
Feb 1, 2018
96
131
I agree that it won't be very enforceable. My bigger worry is if a president can use public health as justification to tell us what we have to wear on public land, what's to stop him from telling us that guns are a public health threat and we can't have them on public land either. Biden has been pretty outspoken against gun rights in the past
 

El Serio

Member
Feb 1, 2018
96
131
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind wearing a mask when I go to Wal-Mart or in meetings etc. And I think that social distancing is awesome not just for pandemic but always. I'm probably just annoyed that less 10% of my work day justifies a mask and I'll soon be told I have to wear one even when I'm not around anyone.

I hate one size fits all federal regulations being applied where they make no sense though
 
  • Like
Reactions: kidoggy

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
573
199
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind wearing a mask when I go to Wal-Mart or in meetings etc. And I think that social distancing is awesome not just for pandemic but always. I'm probably just annoyed that less 10% of my work day justifies a mask and I'll soon be told I have to wear one even when I'm not around anyone.

I hate one size fits all federal regulations being applied where they make no sense though
How about a 10K foot view, as in, you enter a federal facility where there are essential workers and you put on a mask to protect them at their workplace.

I feel the same way about the people working at walmart. If they're good enough to be there, wearing a mask to protect me as a shopper, to make sure that the country is supplied with goods, food, etc. the very least I can do is show my respect by wearing a mask when I shop there.
 

El Serio

Member
Feb 1, 2018
96
131
How about a 10K foot view, as in, you enter a federal facility where there are essential workers and you put on a mask to protect them at their workplace.

I feel the same way about the people working at walmart. If they're good enough to be there, wearing a mask to protect me as a shopper, to make sure that the country is supplied with goods, food, etc. the very least I can do is show my respect by wearing a mask when I shop there.
Did you even read the post you replied to?
 

JimP

Veteran member
Mar 28, 2016
5,474
4,594
67
Gypsum, Co
Here is the order:


Quote:
Sec. 2. Immediate Action Regarding Federal Employees, Contractors, Buildings, and Lands. (a) The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to require compliance with CDC guidelines with respect to wearing masks, maintaining physical distance, and other public health measures by: on-duty or on-site Federal employees; on-site Federal contractors; and all persons in Federal buildings or on Federal lands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Serio

El Serio

Member
Feb 1, 2018
96
131
Yes.

Did you read the executive order before you started filling in the blanks with rhetoric and guesses?
I tried to but couldn't find it. Now that Jim posted it, it doesn't look like anything worth worrying about. Basically just recommendactions. CNN made it sound like some big thing
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuzzH

El Serio

Member
Feb 1, 2018
96
131
Here is the order:


Quote:
Sec. 2. Immediate Action Regarding Federal Employees, Contractors, Buildings, and Lands. (a) The heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall immediately take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to require compliance with CDC guidelines with respect to wearing masks, maintaining physical distance, and other public health measures by: on-duty or on-site Federal employees; on-site Federal contractors; and all persons in Federal buildings or on Federal lands.
Thanks Jim! Doesn't look too fearsome when you read the actual text
 
  • Like
Reactions: taskswap and BuzzH

JimP

Veteran member
Mar 28, 2016
5,474
4,594
67
Gypsum, Co
Well, with the stroke of a pen he shut down the Keystone Pipeline and at a minimum 11,000 jobs.

The sad thing about this is that now the oil will be shipped over rail lines that have a much higher accident rate than a pipeline does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kidoggy

taskswap

Active Member
Jul 9, 2018
453
303
Colorado
Don't believe what big industry pays Faux News to tell you. Neither "side" of the media thinks twice about getting you worked up with click bait to drive ad revenue.

The actual data tells a different, more nuanced story. For accidents:

33498

There was a time in the early 90's when pipelines were marginally "better" than rail on a spillage-quantity-comparison basis, but rail made more improvements over time than pipelines did. Rail cars are much easier to maintain than pipelines because you don't need to shut a whole pipeline down to do it, and you can do that maintenance in rail-yards with fixed, heavy equipment. Also, rail provides a lot more flexibility - pipelines ultimately handle only a portion of the distance oil needs to travel, and the "last mile" is often still delivered by rail or truck. (The chart doesn't continue into the 2010's but from what I've read, the trend basically continues - downward for all methods except trucking, downward the most for ocean and rail.)

One of the biggest challenges with pipelines is that when there IS a leak, you aren't talking about a few rail cars of crude dumped into the track ballast. They can be hundreds of thousands of gallons. And because they're often under-reported in the news, it can make you think they're safer than they are. A different section of Keystone ALREADY dumped 383,000 gallons of crude in ND, and the same month (Oct 2019) in Texas there was a 500,000-gallon diesel spill from a different rupture. In 2020, Colonial leaked 492,000 gallons of gasoline in NC. That's a lot of gas! These are just some of the notable ones - somewhere in the US, a pipeline leak is reported at least 2-3x a month. Most are "only" a few thousand gallons.

By the way, this is part of the reason if you dig deeply enough into the numbers, say if you happen to have a buddy who's a Futures trader, you find that the final amortized cost for pipeline delivery sometimes works out to be a wash against rail - by the time you factor in the lost product and downtime from spills, plus the lawsuits and cleanup costs, you're almost rolling the dice on pipeline being better anyway.

That doesn't mean all pipelines are bad - rail could never replace the majority of the smaller ones - but they certainly shouldn't be put on a pedestal. They have real problems and I personally sympathize with folks that wouldn't want one in their backyard. I sure as hell wouldn't allow one across my land without a fight. Personally I don't consider even 1200 gallons of gas dumped into a place I might want to hunt or fish "small", and I don't want to leave my kids a poisoned planet "because jobs." Trust me, the oil industry is one of the single most lucrative industries in all of history. They WILL get that oil to market, and there will be jobs to help do it, regardless of the method used.

As for the jobs, TC Energy says 11,000 but never backs it up. The actual documents put together when the pipeline was originally proposed say 3900 construction (temporary), then only 35 permanent and 15 temporary workers "to run it." But the real lie in the whole pitch is that they don't count how many jobs are created by the OTHER methods. Delivering by rail isn't free - there's only a certain amount of capacity in the system, just like pipeline capacity works. If you want to deliver more, you need workers making new cars, engineers operating the trains, maintenance workers doing their bit, track workers doing their bit, etc. There are tons of jobs in every delivery option. Put it another way, can anyone here name an out-of-work welder (who actually is good at what they do?)

Drill, baby, drill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: buckbull and BuzzH