Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 (3) 4 »


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6122
Offline
The bill has passed the House, with the time period being changed from 5 years to 3 years.

The bill will now go before the Senate. If you have considered weighing in on this issue, but haven't yet done so, now is the time to do it. The first threads I posted provide tools that make it easy to contact your state Senator.

Posted on: 2010/5/12 22:42


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13424
Offline
3 years is reasonable. I've already weighed in to my senator...

Posted on: 2010/5/13 8:44


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
Senator Opake's office responded within 12 hours. They are listening.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 9:22


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13623
Offline
wow, Mike Opake still around?

Posted on: 2010/5/13 9:48


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
Yep. Been writing him my entire life.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 10:19


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13623
Offline
Assumed office
January 2, 1973

I was 8...he was a Rep. before that since '69.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 10:39


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2006/9/12 21:16
From Suburban Pittsburgh
Posts: 1191
Offline
Contacted my Senator a few moments ago. Thanks for the update Troutbert. I'm hopeful that many of you will do the same.

Here is a summary of how the House voted.

Please use this link and contact your Senator if you haven't already done so.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 12:31
_________________
~ Leave only your footprints ~


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22235
Online
The house roll call vote is here:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/L ... d=0&rc_body=H&rc_nbr=1459

The Bill was amended to a three year moratorium, as previously mentioned before final passage.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 13:45
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2006/9/11 10:32
From Berks County
Posts: 484
Offline
I sent my opinion to the Senate. Hopefully the right thing is done. I am scared to think what the future might hold for us fisherman. Between posting of land and environmental concerns, the future is pretty depressing.

Troy

Posted on: 2010/5/13 14:56


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
I disagree. The future is bright. The environment has been improving by leaps and bounds in the last few decades. It will continue to do so. Sure a few new threats will pop up, but it's not enough to undo all of the progress we've made.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 15:37


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2006/9/11 10:32
From Berks County
Posts: 484
Offline
How can the future be bright if we have no place to fish in 30 years? That is an exaggeration, but you get the point. This private land thing has taken many miles of trout water from us already. Do you really believe that is going to get any better? I doubt it.

We might be thinking smarter about the environment, but our world is way too populated. Buildings are being built everywhere around our trout streams and that is not helping. PA has changed so much in 20 years. What do you think it will look like in 50 years?

Posted on: 2010/5/13 16:04


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
I agree that access and development is a huge issue. I just don't see the economic incentive to develop all of these rural areas. There aren't enough jobs there as it is. Hopefully I'm right, or at the very least, hopefully we start to think better about developing around sensitive areas.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 16:15


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2006/9/11 10:32
From Berks County
Posts: 484
Offline
I agree. We need to cut back with the urban development. I hope I am wrong, but I think PA is going to one big concrete slab eventually. It might not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen here before other areas of the US. Look at the Poconos. Once a very beautiful area. Now it still has its areas, but a lot of it is getting built up. We just won't have the room for all these people and trout to coexist.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 16:25


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22235
Online
Complaining about overpopulation is like complaining about crowded trout streams. We all feel there are too many of us, but no one wants to volunteer to leave.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 16:25
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13424
Offline
I agree with Jay from a lot of pollution concerns. Things are getting better. From regulation of dirty industry, to acid rain, to cleaning up mine acid sources, etc. Good stuff.

Lately those improvements have outpaced development. But development won't be stopped. And I've always held that a rapid increase in development, not pollution, is the real danger behind Marcellus. Well pads are bad enough, with the mud and resulting siltation that comes with. But there's going to be a lot of roadwork, improving the existing roads as well as building dirt and gravel roads throughout the landscape. New bridges. Money is going to pour into small rural towns. Not everyone will get their payday, but they will see their towns grow quickly around them with new residential districts and especially chain stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. Boomtowns = development. I'm less concerned about the catastrophic "poisoning of waterways", which will happen somewhere, but rarely, and the exception rather than the rule. I'm more concerned about good old fashioned development.

Posted on: 2010/5/13 20:03



« 1 2 (3) 4 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com