Industrial waste spill--Frankstown branch Juniata

[troutbert]

Post 27: "A true environmentalist would probably argue that sport fishing should be stopped as it results in the killing of fish. Is that we want?"

My response:

"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."

 

[ryansheehan]

troutbert wrote:
Post 27: "A true environmentalist would probably argue that sport fishing should be stopped as it results in the killing of fish. Is that we want?"

My response:

"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."

Again, I agree, I was not replying to you, nor was I taking a position.. A statement about environmentalists was made. Sal said it was bullshit, it was a true statement. Was it off topic, yes, but wanted to clarify the correct term. It's a pet peeve of mine.

 

[timbow]

troutbert- the point I was trying to make is that many flyfisherman like to make the claim that they are these great environmentalists/conservationists, however there are groups and people out there that would disagree. They believe we are partaking in a cruel and inhumane sport, regardless of whether c&r is practiced. All I’m saying is be careful to look at all the facts and information before you start buying into all the hype and point fingers. It’s very easy to misconstrue the facts and spin them to suite your agenda. And my ban sport fishing comment was meant to show that no matter what you do someone or some group is going to try to misconstrue it to further their agenda.

 

[hooker-of-men]

John96 wrote:
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

This is a very worthwhile post and a good, loose sketch.

I think, overall, the effort by people here and elsewhere to treat these terms as static and firmly ideological is a problem. The use of any of this language by groups and individuals who identify with the terms is extremely fluid.

I mean, consider Sierra Club, Earth First, and Earth Liberation Front. Most people associated with any of them would say they are environmentalists, but the actual pragmatic definition of what this means varies insanely widely. If anyone has read McPhee's Encounters with the Archdruid, it seems clear that the meaning of the term "conservationist" has been debated since at least the 1970s (as John seems to know).

The more important distinction here is this: do you hear about a potentially destructive industrial accident and instinctively think:

1) I hope that the environment and the watershed are safe, despite what corporate interests have done.

or

2) I hope that corporate interests are safe, despite what they may have done to the environment.

If you lean towards thought 2, it's safe to say that many fly fishers have ideological differences with you and, further, might think you're an *******.

 

[poopdeck]

I wonder what I am. I practice C&R fishing, recycling, and I don't litter. I like driving my Ford Expedition to the creek or use it to tow my 115 HP 2 stroke boat to the river. I probably have ten pounds of lead on the boat at any given time plus a number of batteries, rods, lures, lines, ropes, coolers and a host of other items manufactured with patroleum in some manner. I do pack out all my trash at the end of every fishing trip.

When it's really hot out I don't take the boat out because I choose to stay inside in my air conditioning. In a way I'm reducing my carbon footprint. Some would argue I'm an abuser of the environment or I don't care about the environment. I think I'm no different then those who would say such a thing. I just don't kid myself that I'm doing more or less then the next fellow.

I guess I'm a realist.

 

[afishinado]

poopdeck wrote:
I wonder what I am. I practice C&R fishing, recycling, and I don't litter. I like driving my Ford Expedition to the creek or use it to tow my 115 HP 2 stroke boat to the river. I probably have ten pounds of lead on the boat at any given time plus a number of batteries, rods, lures, lines, ropes, coolers and a host of other items manufactured with patroleum in some manner. I do pack out all my trash at the end of every fishing trip.

When it's really hot out I don't take the boat out because I choose to stay inside in my air conditioning. In a way I'm reducing my carbon footprint. Some would argue I'm an abuser of the environment or I don't care about the environment. I think I'm no different then those who would say such a thing. I just don't kid myself that I'm doing more or less then the next fellow.

I guess I'm a realist.

^ Pretty much like the average Joe in the US, I would say.

 

[SurfCowboyXX]

I drive a 2004 Suburban with 150k miles. I plan to keep it on the road until at least 300k, and more if I can. It eats more gas than a smaller, newer car, but it tows a boat and drives on sand and can be loaded with my family and our dogs and all our gear for a week or more vacation AND tow the boat, too. So, despite its size, it's useful and appropriate for me to have, as I do all of the above several times per year. Were I to sell the truck (or junk it) and buy a Prius afterward (forget the fact that I wouldn't be able to do 3/4 of what I can in the Suburban), I would actually be making my footprint larger, because the environmental impact of building a new Prius is not offset by the decreased mileage of my vehicle. So, one thing you can do to at least mitigate your carbon footprint is to not lease vehicles or trade them in every 3-4 years. Better yet, buy used (who the Hell wants the kind of depreciation you see these days?). I admit my truck eats a lot more gas than most, but it's the only vehicle I've purchased in the last decade, so I'm a little more comfortable with the idea of all the damage I might be doing.

 

[tomgamber]

en·vi·ron·men·tal·ist
in?v?r?n?men(t)?l?st/
noun
noun: environmentalist; plural noun: environmentalists

1.
a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment.
synonyms: conservationist, preservationist, ecologist, nature lover; More
informaltree hugger, green, greenie
"environmentalists and industrialists must unite to save the world's forests"
2.
a person who considers that environment, as opposed to heredity, has the primary influence on the development of a person or group.

brookie chaser must be referring to the politically rhetorical definition. :-D

 

[John96]

SurfCowboyXX wrote:
I drive a 2004 Suburban with 150k miles. I plan to keep it on the road until at least 300k, and more if I can. It eats more gas than a smaller, newer car, but it tows a boat and drives on sand and can be loaded with my family and our dogs and all our gear for a week or more vacation AND tow the boat, too. So, despite its size, it's useful and appropriate for me to have, as I do all of the above several times per year. Were I to sell the truck (or junk it) and buy a Prius afterward (forget the fact that I wouldn't be able to do 3/4 of what I can in the Suburban), I would actually be making my footprint larger, because the environmental impact of building a new Prius is not offset by the decreased mileage of my vehicle. So, one thing you can do to at least mitigate your carbon footprint is to not lease vehicles or trade them in every 3-4 years. Better yet, buy used (who the Hell wants the kind of depreciation you see these days?). I admit my truck eats a lot more gas than most, but it's the only vehicle I've purchased in the last decade, so I'm a little more comfortable with the idea of all the damage I might be doing.

You make a good point here. Sometimes the best environmental decisions can be cryptic. At a glance, getting a more fuel efficient car is better, but what about when you consider the environmental costs of producing that car? It's likely better to run you gas guzzler into the ground and then buy a newer more efficient car.

Large scale environmental protection decisions are usually (unfortunately) messy political B.S. But on the day to day who can argue with:

Use it up, wear it out, make do and do without

 

[moon1284]

Why would it matter if you drove the car to 300k miles or someone else did? The whole carbon footprint thing is a joke imo. You can manipulate the data to prove whatever you want. Is there a such thing as "mpg shaming"?

 

[troutbert]

timbow wrote:
troutbert- the point I was trying to make is that many flyfisherman like to make the claim that they are these great environmentalists/conservationists, however there are groups and people out there that would disagree. They believe we are partaking in a cruel and inhumane sport, regardless of whether c&r is practiced. All I’m saying is be careful to look at all the facts and information before you start buying into all the hype and point fingers. It’s very easy to misconstrue the facts and spin them to suite your agenda. And my ban sport fishing comment was meant to show that no matter what you do someone or some group is going to try to misconstrue it to further their agenda.

There are people who favor banning sport fishing.

But it's not relevant to the discussion here, because no one here has advocated banning sport fishing. It's a fly fishing website.

You seem to be suggesting that if fishermen oppose water pollution that that will somehow lead to increased support for banning fishing.

That fishermen opposing pollution >----> fishing being banned.

But how so? Why should we believe this?

You haven't explained why and how you think that would happen. What sort of chain of causation are you thinking of?

Fishermen have for generations been at the forefront of fighting against water pollution. It's in our interest to do so.

You're suggesting that this will lead to a negative effect of increased support for banning fishing. But that "doesn't follow." There isn't a logical connection between the two things.

 

[FarmerDave]

AndyP wrote:
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.

I just farted, and although I am sure it contained some greenhouse gasses, it was no big deal.

Oops, I just did it again.

If it was clay and water, it was no big deal. I don't need anyone to tell me this.

 

[FarmerDave]

tomgamber wrote:
en·vi·ron·men·tal·ist
in?v?r?n?men(t)?l?st/
noun
noun: environmentalist; plural noun: environmentalists

1.
a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment.
synonyms: conservationist, preservationist, ecologist, nature lover; More
informaltree hugger, green, greenie
"environmentalists and industrialists must unite to save the world's forests"
2.
a person who considers that environment, as opposed to heredity, has the primary influence on the development of a person or group.

brookie chaser must be referring to the politically rhetorical definition. :-D

Well, there you have it. If it is on the internet, it must be true. ;-)

I wouldn't say conservationist is 100% synonymous with environmentalist, ecologist, nature lover, and especially preservationist, but there is a lot of overlap... meaning sometimes they are synonymous.

Why is this such a big deal?

 

[FarmerDave]

poopdeck wrote:
I wonder what I am...

Now there is some low hanging fruit.

 

[deaddriftx]

Boy, you people argue over the dumbest stuff on the planet..... Dear lord....

 

[troutbert]

FarmerDave wrote:

tomgamber wrote:

I wouldn't say conservationist is 100% synonymous with environmentalist, ecologist, nature lover, and especially preservationist, but there is a lot of overlap... meaning sometimes they are synonymous.

Why is this such a big deal?

The idea is to portray those who care about the environment as extremists who are out to ban sport fishing.

 

[timbow]

Troutbert- apparently my ban sport fishing analogy was a poor choice, I apologize. My whole point was that everyone has a different view on what it means to protect the environment. You even stated yourself that as a fisherman you have a vested interest in protecting waterways from pollution. And that’s fine, we need to protect what we cherish, but we need to be realistic about what society requires to remain functional. My analogy about the environmental groups wanting to ban sport fishing was to make the point that while you may view energy companies as the evil monster there are others out there that view you as the evil monster. So, is there truth to them viewing your actions as evil? Now what would your rebuttal be to their ascertation of you? You would probably acknowledge a little bit of truth to what they are saying and point out all the mis-information they are spewing and the benefits that fisherman provide to both the environment and the economy, right? Now step back and take a look at the comments that people were making about the spilling of some clay onto the ground. Yes, there is a little bit of truth to the statement that energy companies pollute, but just as the anti-fishing group was quick to point out all the bad things and not acknowledge any of the benefits you are quick to label them as massive polluters who do nothing good. In the end, we need both energy and the environment. We need to understand and accept that a balance needs to maintained and both parties will need to accept some compromises.

 

[tomitrout]

Oh, no harm then, it's just a little bit of clay.

Oh don't worry, it's just one or two wells that have been contaminated.

Just another sinkhole in the backyard, or under the street, no problem.

No biggy I guess, it's obviously no bigger a deal than stinging a few planted fish....

 

[poopdeck]

No one is saying it's not an issue. Fortunately it's not a bigger issue then it really is. We live in a modern society. There is a price for that and we are all willing to pay that price. Some just don't like to admit it so they talk about how recycling a plastic bag makes them a bigger friend of the earth. Although driving a Kia and wearing wool does absolutely nothing towards saving the environment, if it makes you feel better then have at it. Just don't force all of us to drive a Kia so a few can merely feel good.

I have no intention of moving back into a cave and neither does anybody else. So we are back to striking that balance where sometimes accidents happen. Although these accidents pale in comparison to what nature causes we should do everything we can to prevent them and correct them when they do happen. Fortunately that's exactly what is happening. The spill happened, its been reported, it's being corrected and steps will be taken to try to prevent a repeat. Life is good and I'm sure my grandchildren will appreciate this effort.

 

[SurfCowboyXX]

Why would it matter if you drove the car to 300k miles or someone else did? The whole carbon footprint thing is a joke imo. You can manipulate the data to prove whatever you want. Is there a such thing as "mpg shaming"?

Supply and demand, that's why. Math. If I keep my car longer, then the overall demand for new cars drops a tiny bit. If everyone does, overall demand drops significantly. Overall demand for cars dropping means less need for raw materials, which means less environmental impact. Leasing cars and trading them in every few years DRIVES demand and production of vehicles, and when you see how many sit unused in lots over time, you realize that a lot of environmental impact was wasted on the assembly of vehicles that are unused. Just a poor allocation of resources, based entirely upon consumer ego. That, and I think it's a lot smarter financially to get the maximum use of durable goods.