Industrial waste spill--Frankstown branch Juniata

[John96]

dryflyguy wrote:
What section of the stream is this on?

Along Juniata Valley Road.

 

[John96]

[/quote]


You might want to check some of your facts.

It was reported 3/18.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2018/03/dep-suspends-pipeline-drilling-over-spill/

As others have noted, drilling fluid is not the same as fracking fluid.

The use of eminent domain on a non-interstate project survived a court challenge to it's legality. It may be wrong in your eyes but it's not currently illegal.

Not that the spill is a good thing, but including inflammatory anti-drilling/pipeline/energy rhetoric doesn't change the facts of the situation. It might whip up a base that doesn't care to deal with facts, but that's it.
[/quote]


That was a previous spill. The one I was referring to in my original post was the second in a few days.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2018/03/drilling-leaks-contaminate-wetland-river/

Regardless, it does not belong in our rivers.

You're right. If it was upheld in court it is not illegal. However, eminent domain for corporate gain is immoral and should be illegal.

I am okay coming off as anti-drilling/pipeline/energy. This company runs on an infeasible business model and leaves a path of destruction in their path. Sunoco/ETP currently owes a few billion in back taxes, >10 million in fines, and is filing for bankruptcy for the second time in ten years. That, to me, doesn't seem like a organization that should be perusing new endeavors.

 

[John96]

SurfCowboyXX wrote:
Yeah, this is only drilling fluid. It's nowhere near as bad as LNG or petrol. But look at the bright side: once the pipeline is built, ETP will start pumping LNG or petrol through it day and night until it inevitably fails (they all do eventually). THEN, you'll have your stream-killing spill. Be patient.

This is the same company that built the pipeline through the South Dakota reservation and then had spills in their water. It's just what they do, and they're wildly proud of it. Back on February 20, the CEO testified in Delaware Chancery Court that they were particularly proud of the pipeline they had managed to recently lay through the most sensitive part of the Atchafalaya Swamp in Louisiana. So in time, you can say goodbye to that place, as well.

Incidentally, if you don't have an ethical objection to investing in a company that couldn't give the first fart about clean rivers, then I'd advise looking into both ETE and ETP. Thank me later with a bottle of Blanton's.

I think they like to call this "progress".

 

[poopdeck]

How have you guys reduced your dependencies on oil, plastics and other synthetics? Sounds to me you like to use what modern society offers but complain about the delivery. There is a necessary balance that needs to be struck for your comforts.

 

[tomitrout]

How have you guys reduced your dependencies on oil, plastics and other synthetics? Sounds to me you like to use what modern society offers but complain about the delivery. There is a necessary balance that needs to be struck for your comforts.

Bought a car that's more efficient that the last one, refuse plastic bags at the store 95% of the time (if I can carry it to the counter I can carry it to the car), overall reduce use of single use items, read labels and try to avoid synthetics (wool and down when possible), buy local/avoid big box stores, recycle as much as I can, etc, etc.....and fish cane rods and sometimes silk lines and avoid flies tied with synthetics (although there are a few in the box).

 

[timbow]

Ding, Ding, Ding...Winner, Winner Chicken Dinner

I typed out almost the exact same thing and deleted it before posting as I didn't want to stir the pot.

Here's another thing to consider in this whole environmental debate- We, as anglers partake in the impaling of fish onto pieces of sharpened steel purely for our enjoyment. Yes, we donate money to protect them, volunteer our time to improve habitat and do truly care about the fish. However, at the end of the day, we are ALL responsible for the killing/harming of many fish as a result of our recreational activity. I'm not sure the fish would be giving us any kind "Great Stewardship" award if it was up to them.

My point is that a balance is needed in everything. A true environmentalist would probably argue that sport fishing should be stopped as it results in the killing of fish. Is that we want?

 

[NewSal]

A true environmentalist would probably argue that sport fishing should be stopped as it results in the killing of fish. Is that we want?

That's total bullshit. If it wasn't for the hunting and fishing communities there wouldn't be the abundance of wildlife we have now. Period.

 

[timbow]

I think your response proved my point perfectly. People are quick to point fingers at others but when the finger is pointed at them they call bullshit.

Do corporations make donations to various wildlife agencies? How about the corporate taxes that they pay, does some of that state revenue go to funding various wildlife efforts and agencies.

Again I'll repeat, the key to all of this is a balance.

 

[tomitrout]

Do corporations make donations to various wildlife agencies? How about the corporate taxes that they pay, does some of that state revenue go to funding various wildlife efforts and agencies.

Well, when it come to the PA Fish & Boat and Game commissions, the answer to that is pretty much a big fat NO, since they are funded by license sales and not of out the Commonwealth's General Fund.

Again I'll repeat, the key to all of this is a balance.

And you are correct, but it sure would be nice if the balance was tipped less to burden the common man and the extraction industries would actually pay their fair share.

 

[foxfire]

Fake News. Next?

 

[AndyP]

I think the fake news is that the spill is no big deal......if your repeatedly told that the “spill” is no big deal....you become numb to it. Sounds like a marketing plan.

 

[ryansheehan]

NewSal wrote:

A true environmentalist would probably argue that sport fishing should be stopped as it results in the killing of fish. Is that we want?

That's total bullshit. If it wasn't for the hunting and fishing communities there wouldn't be the abundance of wildlife we have now. Period.

We've had this discussion before but here goes. An Environmentalist by definition would completely stop sport fishing. A conservationist would agree with you sal.

 

[troutbert]

timbow wrote:

A true environmentalist would probably argue that sport fishing should be stopped as it results in the killing of fish. Is that we want?

Not so. I'm an environmentalist and I do not favor banning sport fishing.

And that is very common. A great many fishermen are environmentalists.

And a great many environmentalists do not fish, but do not advocate banning sport fishing.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Then, troutbert, by definition, you are a conservationist. Though you can "identify" however you want in today's society. Like Ryan said, this has all been covered here before. The terms are too often used synonymously and they're different terms.

An environmentalist believes in a "no human interaction" approach to the environment. Like a sanctuary.

A conservationist believes in wise use of a resource beneficial to both humans and the environment.

An environmentalist cannot be a conservationist on any issue without sacrificing their core values. A conservationist can be an environmentalist on some issues, but they are still a conservationist.

 

[ryansheehan]

troutbert wrote:

timbow wrote:

A true environmentalist would probably argue that sport fishing should be stopped as it results in the killing of fish. Is that we want?

Not so. I'm an environmentalist and I do not favor banning sport fishing.

And that is very common. A great many fishermen are environmentalists.

And a great many environmentalists do not fish, but do not advocate banning sport fishing.

That's incorrect, do a little research on environmentalist vs. conservationist. Just because people incorrectly use these terms interchangeably doesn't change the history or defintion. Don't mean to hijack the thread as there is 10+pages of this somewhere on this sight.

 

[Swattie87]

Can ya tell it’s snowing like crazy outside?

 

[John96]

The way it was taught to me:

conservationist--> use, but use wisely

preservationist--> do not use

environmentalist--> someone who cares about the environment (may be either or both of the above

 

[troutbert]

No one on here has advocated a ban on sport fishing.

It's pretty hard to make a point arguing against positions that no one has advocated.

 

[RLeep2]

>>We've had this discussion before but here goes. An Environmentalist by definition would completely stop sport fishing. A conservationist would agree with you sal.>>

This is a convenient stereotyping that has its basis in political preferences and has virtually no basis in reality..

 

[ryansheehan]

troutbert wrote:
No one on here has advocated a ban on sport fishing.

It's pretty hard to make a point arguing against positions that no one has advocated.

Agreed, just correcting a statement. The wrong word was used.