HB 1576: Efforts to Undermine PA Wild Trout Protections Continue

greenlander

greenlander

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
806
Some of this won't be new information for those of you who have been following HB 1576 and SB 1047, but much of it may be.

Even many those who I've spoken with that have been trying to stay tuned in were unaware the house bill made it through committee in November, which is scary. It's time to start wondering if there's anything but time stopping it from passing on the House floor now.

http://www.hatchmag.com/articles/pennsylvania-conservatives-continue-assault-wild-trout-and-endangered-species-protections
 
The Republican led Pa. government is once again steered by commercial interests.
 
Greenlander nice post and good article. The obvious question that supporters can't easily explain is why the change. Seems endangered species and potential wild trout waters are just a nuisance to groups like Marcellus Shale Coalition which supports the new bill.
 
dkile wrote:
Greenlander nice post and good article. The obvious question that supporters can't easily explain is why the change. Seems endangered species and potential wild trout waters are just a nuisance to groups like Marcellus Shale Coalition which supports the new bill.

Thanks Dave.

As I understand it, there are agreed upon inefficiencies in the permitting process that developers (whether energy companies or otherwise) have to go through at various levels throughout the state government. Such is the nature of bureaucracy, however. That's not to say that changes to produce a more efficient and transparent governmental process shouldn't be welcomed, but there's little evidence that I've seen that suggests these inefficiencies can be pinned on the PFBC and PGC.

Even if you could delude yourself into thinking the bills' sponsors and supporters are well intentioned, that doesn't change the fact that what they are proposing a) would fail to accomplish what they claim it would and b) would prove incredibly harmful (possibly completely destroying) wild trout and endangered species protections.
 
Greenlander I can't say it so well or eloquently. I have spoke personally with my local representative. What I get from it is simply they would like to put in place a board of people who would factor in other variables into the decision making process on protection. The other variables being anything other than the sole best interest of the species objectively. Does that sum it up?

If anyone finds out more info I will be interested on knowing when it goes before the house. There is just way too much money involved.
Who will appoint the Board members? This is a scary question for me.
 
blueheron wrote:
The Republican led Pa. government is once again steered by commercial interests.

+1 Corbett and Big Gas go hand and hand. We've seen what happed to our streams after big coal was here (Amd) We need to fight this bill.
 

I'm not a biology scholar. I choose Not! to use eloquent speech ,or fancy words to promote and convince others of a self implied intelligence.

But i have driven many of the dirt roads in northern PA namely in the area of Pine creek valley. I've witnessed first hand the filthy muddy, mess the gas company's are making, complete with guard shacks , heavy equip ect... Common farm boy logic tells me that all has to run off somewhere. Only educated ignorance devoid of common sense and reason would deny it. I was up this past fall, and it left me with a feeling of utter disgust...So much so that i commented to myself...."Lord when will we learn"
 

nd might i add yet one more thought..What we do today... determines the history that we live with tomorrow. Will Big business and Gov't write yet another chapter in the loss of habitat history...Will we again read in the future such things as?


Although Pennsylvania streams once harbored numerous Wild trout, in many of it's streams

Wild trout are now extremely rare and found in only a handful of protected streams.


What we do today will determine what we will read tomorrow as history. I for one hope i never have to read what i just wrote above.
 
shademt wrote:

Although Pennsylvania streams once harbored numerous Wild trout, in many of it's streams

Wild trout are now extremely rare and found in only a handful of protected streams.

This is very wrong. Why lose the argument by claiming things so blatantly untrue?
 
I strongly urge everyone who is against this bill and what it stands for to remember your represenative's and senator's vote on this subject when it comes time for re-election. It might also be worth letting said senators and representatives know that you won't forget before this thing comes to the floor for a vote. This may be paticularly important if you have voted for them/ shared their party affiliation in the past.

 
I've contacted my rep (who I know personally) several times now and told him he will not get my vote in the future and I will work against him. Unfortunately he is one of the sponsers of the bill and I don't hold much hope for his negative vote.
John
 
John and others:

Is the alternative to your rep. committed to protecting trout streams?

If not, why not use your access to them to persuade them to value nature above profits?
 

Jackm....re-read my post.

I was not stating that as a present condition....Only as a possible future statement that we may one day read if we don't properly manage and protect our streams today.....sorry if it appeared otherwise.

You'll note that i closed by saying...I hope i never have to read what i just wrote.
 
On the topic of permitting, those of you who work on habitat projects should know that the GP permit process has changed, and a lot more information is necessary to gain those permits. In addition, while GP-1 use to be a free permit, it is now a $50 permit. Not a PFBC requirement - DEP changes.
 
JackM wrote:
John and others:

Is the alternative to your rep. committed to protecting trout streams?

If not, why not use your access to them to persuade them to value nature above profits?

Jack,
Our TU chapter met with our local rep who is also on the comity that voted to move this bill to the full house.

He started his talk by saying he is an avid sportsman and loves to fish and hunt. He stated the party talking points that all the Republicans are saying. Then he started to say the species that are put on the endangered species list never come off the list causing more regulation and cost to business. (Now the truth came out) We told him this is not true.

He ended by saying he will support this bill.

Al we can do now is to continue lobbying him to vote no when the bill come up for a full house vote.

The only time he decided to listed to us is when we said we have 300 members in our chapter. Maybe this might sway him, but I don't think so.

Bill
 
I just found out that the Unified Sportsmen of PA and the Pennsylvania State Camp Lessee's Association are supporting this bill.

Anyone here belong to one of these orgs? How could anyone that claims to love the outdoors support this bill?
 
Stenonema wrote:
Who will appoint the Board members?

The “Independent Regulatory Review Committee” is comprised of 5 members, 1 appointed by the governor, 2 from the majority parties in the house and senate, and 2 from the minority party.

If they were full time positions occupied by qualified professionals making decisions on sound, objective basis, they might have some value. But since they are political appointees likely to change with every election, they are worse then useless. Calling them an IRRC is a joke.
 
shortrod2 wrote:
I just found out that the Unified Sportsmen of PA and the Pennsylvania State Camp Lessee's Association are supporting this bill.

Anyone here belong to one of these orgs? How could anyone that claims to love the outdoors support this bill?

USP has a big bone to pick with the Game Commission over deer reduction. While I know very little about the ins and outs of that dispute, the USP openly advertises it as basically the main reason for their existence.

As you note, it seems preposterous that anyone who claims to be a sportsman or love the outdoors could support these bills. That is, unless, it is more important to seize the chance to stick it to the GC.
 
http://steventodd.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/endangered-species-coordination-act-is-worthless-as-teets-on-a-bull/
 
I beleive there is alot of money flying around. My representative did not wish to speak about it but rather to give the details of the bill. My rep also metioned his retirement. I think we will see alot of this next term. Just guessing.
It was a good strategic move to get the USP on their side. Anyone hear what their reason for their support is?
 
Back
Top