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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 »


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7635
Offline
Can one of the moderators change all references to Class A in the OP to Streams with Natural Reproduction? Thank you.

Posted on: 3/11 13:41
_________________
There is always time to do more to protect wild trout.


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18467
Offline
I'm still trying to figure out who the "more on" is.

Posted on: 3/11 14:11
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2010/9/3 8:25
From Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 143
Offline
This is precisely why there should be an extraction tax on the drilling industry. They are forcing the hand of the PFCB on a legality to get their way, and the PFCB has neither the time nor resources to prove themselves fight back. I build commercial buildings for a General Contractor, and we have to pay for things like environmental impact studies, traffic studies, pedestrian safety studies, etc. to be granted a permit (which I also pay for) prior to building. Then I have a slew of inspectors and compliance officers that inspect each and every aspect of the construction from soil disruption to Erosion and Sediment Control to the viability of the structure and it's mechanical components. While it sometimes seems like over regulation, the point is if I want to build a building it's on me to prove that I'm not impacting an environment or ecosystem or traffic or pedestrian safety. I can't simply say to the City of Pittsburgh "well you never did a traffic safety study to prove me wrong, so you have to let me get away with installing 3 stop signs at a 4 way stop"

Posted on: 5/7 12:36


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2011/7/6 12:30
From Ephrata, PA
Posts: 6418
Offline
How would an extraction tax solve those issues?

Posted on: 5/7 12:51


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2011/9/13 11:13
From Flourtown, PA
Posts: 201
Offline
The tax money could fund the Commonwealth, which could then allocate some of that money to PFGC to litigate. Now, they are going into battle unarmed and unable to fight back. So any industry with enough money (read-more money than a pitifully underfunded state agency-in other words, any industry) can force a state agency's hand through litigation. This is what Grover Nordquist always wanted, to get government so weak and unfunded that it could be drowned in a bathtub (or in this instance, a native trout stream).

Posted on: 5/7 14:09


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2012/2/16 18:55
From Pennsylvania
Posts: 174
Offline
So the motives of the Marcellus people are to have streams removed from list so they can freely wreck said streams so there will never be any trout reproduction now or in the future?

Posted on: 5/7 15:30


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
4/6 22:55
From Benton, PA
Posts: 205
Offline
Of the 49 proposed removals, 20 of them are tributaries to Pine Creek. (40.8%)

Of the 19 proposed removals in Tioga County, 16 are tributaries to Pine Creek. (84.2%)

Of the 8 proposed removals in Lycoming County, 4 are tributaries to Pine Creek. (50%) 3 more are to Larrys Creek, and are listed as "runs".

It's my understanding that a run is a seasonal flow that can, and frequently will, dry up in the summer.

Sounds to me like someone needs to find out what's up with Pine Creek and its feeder streams.

If I were a gamblin' man, I would say that these streams either got fished out or were out-competed by stocked fish.

Since nearly all of these listed tributaries drain virtually exclusively the protected state game lands, I would safely assume the energy industries aren't behind these 20 proposed removals.

I can't speak for the other counties and their related streams, but contrary to what you see on television, not everything is a conspiracy or underhanded tactic.

As Jack Webb used to say on Dragnet, "just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts."

Posted on: 5/7 15:34
_________________
"I started at the top, then slowly worked my way to the bottom." - Buzz Busby


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2013/6/17 14:23
From NW PA
Posts: 15
Offline
The gas companies already pay an "impact fee" of $50,000 per horizontal well. The impact fee has already brought in more than $603 million dollars to the state and local governments. Part of the revenue goes to Marcellus Legacy Fund which will be used for future environmental projects. Tiogo and Lycoming counties have each earned $4.3 million dollars due to the impact fee.

Posted on: 5/7 15:42
_________________
www.rootsandgame.blogspot.com


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2007/6/19 21:49
From Lancaster County
Posts: 1524
Offline
Quote:

duckfoot wrote:
Of the 49 proposed removals, 20 of them are tributaries to Pine Creek. (40.8%)

Of the 19 proposed removals in Tioga County, 16 are tributaries to Pine Creek. (84.2%)

Of the 8 proposed removals in Lycoming County, 4 are tributaries to Pine Creek. (50%)

Sounds to me like someone needs to find out what's up with Pine Creek and its feeder streams.

If I were a gamblin' man, I would say that these streams either got fished out or were out-competed by stocked fish.

Since nearly all of these listed tributaries drain virtually exclusively the protected state game lands, I would safely assume the energy industries aren't behind these 20 proposed removals.

I can't speak for the other counties and their related streams, but contrary to what you see on television, not everything is a conspiracy or underhanded tactic.

As Jack Webb used to say on Dragnet, "just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts."


So the OP assumed that the energy companies were behind the impetus to delist the streams. You assume they are not. Yet, what are the facts? Why were the streams removed? Are there really no fish there? Were the streams added because there should have been fish there, but they were never assessed and some entity is exploiting a technicality to have them removed?

What is the rationale for removing the streams (which is often very different than assumptions or opinions)?

Posted on: 5/7 15:42


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
4/6 22:55
From Benton, PA
Posts: 205
Offline
Quote:

salmonoid wrote:
So the OP assumed that the energy companies were behind the impetus to delist the streams. You assume they are not. Yet, what are the facts? Why were the streams removed? Are there really no fish there? Were the streams added because there should have been fish there, but they were never assessed and some entity is exploiting a technicality to have them removed?

What is the rationale for removing the streams (which is often very different than assumptions or opinions)?


I assumed nothing. I simply stated some statistical numbers and said that not everything is a conspiracy.

I'm a scientist, and I deal with numbers and facts. Unless you have those, then there is no evidence to base one's argument.

Thank you for listing the questions that I was subtly asking. :)

Posted on: 5/7 15:48
_________________
"I started at the top, then slowly worked my way to the bottom." - Buzz Busby


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2011/7/6 12:30
From Ephrata, PA
Posts: 6418
Offline
Quote:

howardfine13 wrote:
The gas companies already pay an "impact fee" of $50,000 per horizontal well. The impact fee has already brought in more than $603 million dollars to the state and local governments. Part of the revenue goes to Marcellus Legacy Fund which will be used for future environmental projects. Tiogo and Lycoming counties have each earned $4.3 million dollars due to the impact fee.


And the extraction tax will go to fund SEPTA.

Posted on: 5/7 16:06


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 2029
Offline
Quote:

duckfoot wrote:

It's my understanding that a run is a seasonal flow that can, and frequently will, dry up in the summer.

As Jack Webb used to say on Dragnet, "just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts."


It's a fact that not all "runs" are seasonal flows that can, and frequently will dry up in the summer.

Right off the top of my head Lick Run (Clinton) comes to mind. It's roughly 15 miles of stream that I've NEVER seen dry up. Even during the dryest, hotest of summers. When many folks hear the word "run", they ASSume it's a tiny stream or brook.

Posted on: 5/7 16:19
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2013/6/17 14:23
From NW PA
Posts: 15
Offline
Quote:
And the extraction tax will go to fund SEPTA


you mean the PA transport authority? Forgive my ignorance, but where was it that you read/heard that? My only point (people can start sharpening their knives now) was to say that the industry is giving a substantial amount of revenue to the state as it is. Continued increases in taxation on an industry that has created a financial buffer for our state, in an otherwise dismal economy, would be a way to make PA look less desirable for companies to continue and invest in the Commonwealth. I'm of the opinion that it would be a shame to drive the gas companies away from PA and thus they would take their future job opportunities, royalty checks, and contributions to our economy with them.

Posted on: 5/7 17:02
_________________
www.rootsandgame.blogspot.com


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
2013/10/29 14:04
From Westmoreland/Tioga
Posts: 219
Online
Quote:

salmonoid wrote:
Yet, what are the facts? Why were the streams removed? Are there really no fish there? Were the streams added because there should have been fish there, but they were never assessed and some entity is exploiting a technicality to have them removed?


My best guess is that when HB1576 came along the PFBC did an internal review of supporting documentation for all of the wild designated streams.

The documentation for the 48 streams in question was lacking, so in order to fight HB1576, the PFBC decided to remove them from the repro list until they could be verified.

This is only my guess, but it seems reasonable to me.

Posted on: 5/7 17:19


Re: More on Un-assessed streams

Joined:
4/6 22:55
From Benton, PA
Posts: 205
Offline
Quote:

wildtrout2 wrote:
It's a fact that not all "runs" are seasonal flows that can, and frequently will dry up in the summer.

Right off the top of my head Lick Run (Clinton) comes to mind. It's roughly 15 miles of stream that I've NEVER seen dry up. Even during the dryest, hotest of summers. When many folks hear the word "run", they ASSume it's a tiny stream or brook.

Right. There's quite a few runs down in Virginia that never dry up. What classifies something as a "run", anyway?

I'd say that the "lack of documentation" theory sounds most plausible.

Posted on: 5/7 17:27
_________________
"I started at the top, then slowly worked my way to the bottom." - Buzz Busby



« 1 (2) 3 »



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
2 Comments





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