Tell Pennsylvania Representatives that Anglers Oppose House Bill 1576

[TimRobinsin]

Just got done watching this:



Long story short: Pyle and Co. are barking up the wrong tree and they know it. They are upset about the DEP rulings based on scientific findings. Instead of trying to change those rulings they are trying to eliminate the problem all together by removing PFBC's ability to protect species. As stated PFBC is trying to avoid having species go on the endangered species list which is good for everyone involved including industry. If a species goes on the ES list the FED steps in and things get a lot more difficult for industry trying to operate within that habitat.

Point is this: Pyle and Co. are trying to get everyone to think that the PFBC and GC are the problem. They are most definitely not and half of the issues they face are FED problems not state.

on a side note, moments of interest in video: there were several good points but here were some highlights:

2:09:50 - Finally the truth

2:32:15 - Pyle wins the oscar (should have been in a few good men)

2:33:15 - Arway Flexin some brain brawn.

Lesson learned: our reps need an IRRC and it's called US!

(fixed video- dkile)

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Wow...how "republican" of them to try and eliminate the power of the state to manage our own wildlife effectively.

 

[TimRobinsin]

Not sure where your going with that squatch but I will point out that 6 dems voted for this bill. Its not about political parties anymore, its about industry buying their way through our state. We need men and women in the government who want to represent us.

 

[franklin]

Are the rules determining ES federal or state? My next question would be are those criteria reasonable?

I'll admit I haven't had the time to research this issue very well. And haven't had the time to listen to the full video linked above. What I am not getting from either side is a detailed argument as to why/why not the bill should be approved/voted down.

Both sides lack credibility with me so simply asking me to send emails to legislators to vote down/up are not sufficient to get me to act. No, I don't trust Tu anymore than one of the energy companies.

 

[TimRobinsin]

The rules for determining an ES or T/E or whatever you want to call it are science based. I don't know what the numbers are and I don't know if they apply by a range only in the state or within the entire range of the species.

Frankly, Franklin, my advice to you is the same as to Sas. Research it yourself. take the time and watch the video and try to gain some perspective. You and I know it means a lot more if you come to the conclusions yourself. I can try to explain it to you may ways but it will never mean more than if you do it yourself. Plus, you are obviously skeptical so you will think I am trying to misinform you. Please take the time.

Many people I talk to about this recognize the fact that this bill WILL have an effect on our fisheries. This bill is serious stuff because they are not going after the effects of operating around a Threatened or Endangered species they are going after agency that determines they exist. By doing this they don't need to worry about BMP's because in a few short years there will be no T/E species to work around because this bill hamstrings the PFBC from making that determination in the first place.

The implementation of the IRRC process in the ES determination process will bring politics and economics into what is a purely scientific judgement call thereby destroying the ability to reach a truly unbiased decision.

IMHO

Ok, there you have it, you all have been PCrayed

 

[klingy]

You mean TRobbed. Oh yeah, and +1 on all of it.

 

[double00]

mr. Pyle and company simply want to remove the obstacle that is the PAFBC when it comes to industry having an easier time in accessing natural resouces. While the PAFBC does have to consider polticial pressures, its not really effectively lobbied like legislators are.

Don't forget that Mr. Pyle and the coal lobby went to the governor's office about 2 years ago or so and had that office try to apply pressure on the PAFBC to "slow down" its survey and designation of wild trout streams. Of course Mr. Arway declined to heed this and continued on doing his job: protecting our aquatic resources and fisheries. The same tripe about "accountability" and "transparency" were bandied about then as they are now.

It seems to me that now Mr. Plye and friends are trying legislate what they couldn't lobby: for the PAFBC to step aside and no be "so strict" in doing its job.

In the May 1976 issue of the PA Angler (can be found as a PDF file on the PAFBC's web site under publications) there is an article by then commissoner Abele who outlined the comission's stance against something called "Energy Parks" which were being proposed at that time. From the sounds of it, there was some serious impact on the environment and on fisheries that would have happened if these things were implemented. I hate to think about what it would be like today; what streams and trout populations we would have, if the comission wasn't independent then and able to throw a serious block to those plans.

Make no mistake, thats what this is about; getting ride of a obstacle to un fettered access to resources. Problem is, do you really trust the resource people to keep you in mind when they are done? If the fracking outfits didn't have to pay the fines or follow the rules as they have had to, do you think north central PA 's streams and trout populations would be what they are today, after the fracker's fist wave? You don't have to look far to see that, without proper restraints, extraction industries won't necessarily restrain themsevles on their own. Every stream in the mountains that runs orange and dead from mine drainage, some 100 years later, reminds us of that.

Thats why I believe this bill is bad, because for no good reason, it removes one of the strongest checks left against this kind of pollution and abuse from happening again. It is founded on a philosophy of sort term gain taking precedent over long term stewardship, and quite frankly, seems to me to be motivated by greed more than anything else.

 

[bikerfish]

double00, you nailed it!!!!!! This is EXACTLY what this bill is about. Those that don't think so, are drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[geebee]

The GOP stance on this is completely consistent with their view of the EPA and even NASA - that publicly funded bodies should be elected and not based on science of expertise.

Which conveniently allows them to disregard in the interests of business.

And why add ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy ?

If you haven't already , let Americanrivers.org know . They have a lot of groups behind them.